Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Two types of science
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 151 of 184 (716631)
01-19-2014 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by herebedragons
01-18-2014 9:34 PM


Re: Other sources of knowledge
Exactly. What are the problems you have with global warming models?
That no one here seems able to briefly, concisely describe them.
Well, it hasn't been "proven", that's just not how it works.
Well if it's going to result in dramatic political action, many people, not just me, believe it needs to be proven.
There is a strong, practically undeniable correlation between human activity and global warming.
Practically undeniable? Not good enough. If your answer to that is forceable political action to do what "needs to be done", what do you think of the possibility of forceable action to counter it? The U.S. had a bloody interior battle from 1860 to 1865. Do you think something similar could happen again?
Well, this hypothetical person is mistaking weather for climate. Weather is what happens over the short term, like days or weeks. Climate is what happens over longer periods of time, like decades or centuries. That the climate is warming (over decades) is a FACT. That fact can be measured and documented; there is no denying that the climate is warming. The CAUSE of the change is what we need models for and is what is debated. If you really feel there is problems with models that suggest human caused global warming, why don't you present the arguments that support your feelings.
That is being done, by others with much more time and knowledge than me. There seems to be evidence that they are, at least partially, being silenced and downplayed by special political interests who seek to profit from global warming policies.
Where do you get your information from? Gore's net worth is reportedly $200 million, far less than your supposed $1 billion. Most of that appears to come from the sale of a network he had ownership in and was sold to Al-Jezeera and his options in Apple stock. It doesn't appear that trading carbon credits made him any where near a $billion.
Environment - The Telegraph
One thing you have to consider in what the "public is willing to pay for" is what costs are being externalized. For instance, if you pay $5 for a tee shirt it is because workers in India are being exploited in the making of that shirt. Were all involved in the production of the tee shirt receiving a fair and equitable compensation, the same tee shirt would cost more like $25. Hows that for what the "public is willing to pay for?" ... exploitation of human labor! How much do you think oil and coal would actually cost if the industry paid for all the environmental damage they do?
It already costs plenty more than it should because of environmentalist profiteering. If all the liberal do-gooders had their way regarding "exploitation of human labor", many in the U.S. wouldn't be able to afford t-shirts at all. There are a lot of U.S. workers, who aren't on the public dole, who work very hard and don't have much to show for it. And they don't always work for "the rich".
Especially when coupled with corruption and political power. Our founding fathers were determined to prevent the new government of the US from exerting that type of control. Contrary to what some may imagine, our founding fathers were not trying to establish a Christian nation, nor were they trying to establish a nation free from religion. They wanted to ensure that this nation would not become a country dominated by any particular religion, such as they had left in England.
I agree. But what is really different from domination by the rituals of religion compared to the domination of special interest science?
Tradition is over rated. We need to live in the day.
Some in the U.S. political left, (as we see in messages 138 and 140 above, for instance) try to re-write history to favor their political views. Others say that history is irrelevant - that it needs to be ignored. At least the latter is much more honest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by herebedragons, posted 01-18-2014 9:34 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Modulous, posted 01-19-2014 8:43 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 157 by herebedragons, posted 01-20-2014 12:07 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 152 of 184 (716634)
01-19-2014 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by marc9000
01-19-2014 7:44 PM


I don't know what "SHTF" means
From context I'm going to say 'Shit Hits The Fan'
but there was scientific hysteria about overpopulation back in the late 1960's, predictions of "mass starvation worldwide by the year 2000" etc. - it all turned out to be bogus.
One would almost be led to think there was some kind of 'green revolution'
Nothing from that list. And science doesn't need to be balanced, just its atheism and liberalism.
Can you figure out a way to test hypotheses that include a god as part of their explanation? Are you sure that science is infected with liberalism and it isn't that liberals tend to trust the scientific method to solve problems?
Climate Change isn't a liberal idea, it has nothing to do with liberalism. Nor is it an atheist idea. Even if you could show that climate change was accepted by liberals more often than conservatives - you might just be seeing the effect of liberals trusting scientific consensus. Especially when you include other environmental issues, the age of the universe and the earth, evolution, homosexuality, race and so on and so forth.
The question that seems to follow naturally here is 'why do conservatives resist scientific consensus?'. And if it is a liberal agenda, why do plenty of conservatives accept it?
Science shouldn't aim to balance itself based on local political rivalries, it should aim to uncover things about the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by marc9000, posted 01-19-2014 7:44 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 153 of 184 (716638)
01-19-2014 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by marc9000
01-19-2014 8:18 PM


Re: Other sources of knowledge
That no one here seems able to briefly, concisely describe them.
Empirically confirmed fact: All other things being equal: Increasing carbon in an atmosphere warmed by radiation results in an increase in temperatures.
Empirically confirmed fact: We are increasing the amount of carbon into our atmosphere.
Conclusion: We are contributing towards the warming of our atmosphere.
Well if it's going to result in dramatic political action, many people, not just me, believe it needs to be proven.
It hasn't been proven that we should be concerned about the life of a foetus, that gays should be forbidden from marriage, that blacks should be forbidden from marrying whites, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...
It has been proven to a degree that exceeds the level of proof required to execute someone or go to war. It has been proven beyond the level of proof that giving tax cuts to the wealthy and political rights to corporations is in the interests of the People.
It is scientifically proven. It is empirically proven. It is not mathematically proven.
Practically undeniable? Not good enough.
So you want to be impractical in your denial? Not good enough.
The U.S. had a bloody interior battle from 1860 to 1865. Do you think something similar could happen again?
Its practically undeniable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by marc9000, posted 01-19-2014 8:18 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 154 of 184 (716652)
01-19-2014 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by marc9000
01-19-2014 7:20 PM


Madison
The fact that he was in favor of freedom of conscience doesn't mean that he was especially religious. So am I, and I'm especially irreligious. In fact atheists often seem keener on freedom of conscience than religious people.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by marc9000, posted 01-19-2014 7:20 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Coyote, posted 01-19-2014 10:46 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 155 of 184 (716653)
01-19-2014 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Dr Adequate
01-19-2014 10:40 PM


Re: Madison
In fact atheists often seem keener on freedom of conscience than religious people.
In world history, religious people have often been willing to have others die for their faith.
In fact, we see a lot of that now in some parts of the globe.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-19-2014 10:40 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 156 of 184 (716658)
01-19-2014 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by marc9000
01-19-2014 7:28 PM


Madison v. Hamilton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by marc9000, posted 01-19-2014 7:28 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 157 of 184 (716661)
01-20-2014 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by marc9000
01-19-2014 8:18 PM


Re: Other sources of knowledge
That no one here seems able to briefly, concisely describe them.
Empirical evidence for an anthropomorphic source of global warming:
1. There has been a gradual decrease in the amount of energy that is being radiated back into space, as measured from satellites, while the input from the sun has not changed very much.
2. Greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, water vapor, and O3) can absorb and emit infrared radiation. This ability allows heat to become trapped in the atmosphere and not escape back into space. O2 and N2 are not affected by these wavelengths, and so are not considered greenhouse gases. Thus we have a verifiable mechanism by which heat can be trapped in the atmosphere.
3. Based on bubbles trapped in ice cores, the atmospheric CO2 level before the start of the industrial revolution was about 280 ppm. Now the atmospheric level of CO2 is nearly 400 ppm, a 43% increase in the last 150 years (which corresponds to the time that humans have been burning fossil fuels in significant amounts).
4. Each of the greenhouse gases trap unique wavelengths of energy. Most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths absorbed by CO2.
Well if it's going to result in dramatic political action, many people, not just me, believe it needs to be proven.
What kind of evidence would it take to "prove" it to you that humans are the primary cause of global warming?
There seems to be evidence that they are, at least partially, being silenced and downplayed by special political interests who seek to profit from global warming policies.
These kind of conspiracy theories make me laugh. If there is any group that should be pushing back against climate change it should be the oil and gas industry, who are some of the most powerful and influential special interest groups in Washington. So who are the special interest groups that are able to suppress the oil and gas industry? The Illuminati?
Did you even read that article or just the headline. Did you see that Gore's venture capital company invested $75 million in Silver Springs Networks. The Energy Department announced funding for improving the energy grid of which utility companies that Silver Springs has contracts with will receive $560 million. Note that Silver Springs is not getting $560 million nor is Al Gore.
Plus, the man believes in this stuff, why should he not invest. Do you begrudge capitalism? Don't get me wrong, I am not a big fan of Gore, but come on, he's wrong for investing in something he believes in and can make a profit from???
It already costs plenty more than it should because of environmentalist profiteering.
Nonsense. I suggest you read Travels of a T-Shirt in a Global Economy to get a better sense of how different stages of the process are exploited in order to bring you a cheap product. Also do some research into what externalization means and figure out what the implications are for the health and future of our society.
Some in the U.S. political left, ... try to re-write history to favor their political views. Others say that history is irrelevant - that it needs to be ignored. At least the latter is much more honest.
History does NOT equal tradition. Tradition means we do this because that's the way we have always done it. Sticking to the way we've always done it simply because we have always done it that way is simply foolish. Tradition can go if it no longer serves a purpose.
Once again ... your objections are misguided, misdirected, uninformed, and just plain stupid.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by marc9000, posted 01-19-2014 8:18 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 158 of 184 (716669)
01-20-2014 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by marc9000
01-19-2014 7:51 PM


Re: tree rings, the age of the earth, and a sad lack of curiosity
You went from standing trees to "dead wood lying on the ground". I've seen dead wood on the ground completely disintegrate in only a few years. I'm not interested in scientific guesses about it thousands of years later.
Curiously the environment there is very dry and it is so high that there are few organisms. Comparing that to swampy areas is a mistake. Deserts have been known to preserve mummies, and this is little different. How do you suppose fossils of old wood develop?
The fact that patterns match is all that matters, it is the same process that was used on the standing dead trees. Wouldn't you expect that trees older than the dead standing trees would have fallen over?
Not really, the following from message 77 caused me to lose interest;
Ah, grabbing an excuse to avoid dealing with the information. Typical creo move. Let me repeat:
Repeatable and testable, but are they falsifiable at those great distances?
Repeatable, testable and falsifiable. It is science after all.
Again, based on this objective empirical evidence, I conclude that the earth is at least 10,502 years old this year (2014)
Why does it seem that a lot of creos get hung up at this age level?
Repeatable, testable and falsifiable means that it is not just assumption or "scientific guesses" marc9000, it is data collection, facts tabulated into a coherent form. Something you can do, a child can do, a computer can do. Computers can't guess.
If it were guesswork then testing that should show errors from bad guesses correct?
Wouldn't that testing and identification of numerous errors show that the system is flawed?
Repeatable, testable and falsifiable. It is science after all.
Again, based on this objective empirical evidence, I conclude that the earth is at least 10,502 years old this year (2014)
And this is still only the beginning. Running away won't change the age of the earth.
And as I've said before, if you don't reply, that's fine, but it may just indicate that you have no answer to this set of questions, something that is also implicit in your response
Not really, the following from message 77 caused me to lose interest;
Because that is the kind of thing people say when they have no response but don't want to admit it (even to themselves).
You aren't even curious about the testing and falsification ... that's kind of a sad lack of curiosity imho.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by marc9000, posted 01-19-2014 7:51 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 159 of 184 (716675)
01-20-2014 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by marc9000
01-19-2014 7:20 PM


Re: There's only one type of science
A few cherry picked quotes aren't the only method of knowing the beliefs of U.S. founders.
5 very pointed quotes direct from the man himself is hardly "cherry picking".
So who gives a flyin' flip about the Senior Pastor Reverand Witherspoon? He is not James Madison, the actual subject of the posts. Your deflection is but a smoke screen why? Because you know Madison was NOT a christian in any sense, by his own words, regardless of where he went to school or under whom he studied.
Pull your head out of it man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by marc9000, posted 01-19-2014 7:20 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 160 of 184 (716685)
01-20-2014 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by marc9000
01-19-2014 7:28 PM


Re: There's only one type of science
Have you ever heard of the 10th amendment?
I have not only heard of it but have read it. More importantly, I have read some of the surprisingly few cases where SCOTUS, over generations, interpreted the clause in relation to the Commerce clause and other amendments.
You may find this hard to believe but we the people set up the Supreme Court to arbitrate these things and we gave them the last word on such subjects. I do not recall there being any Walter Williams on the bench.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by marc9000, posted 01-19-2014 7:28 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 184 (716730)
01-20-2014 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by marc9000
01-14-2014 9:26 PM


Re: Nonsense
I don't think humans are completely capable of smugly making assertions about what's going on thousands, or hundreds of thousands of light years away.
Why not? For what specific reasons can one not make assertions about distant events?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by marc9000, posted 01-14-2014 9:26 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2014 6:04 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 162 of 184 (716735)
01-20-2014 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Son Goku
01-20-2014 5:13 PM


Re: Nonsense
Ah but don't you understand? Only creos can make smug assertions about what you can know.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Son Goku, posted 01-20-2014 5:13 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 163 of 184 (716902)
01-22-2014 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by marc9000
01-19-2014 7:44 PM


Re: falsification
No overpopulation and no man made global warming. Thanks for the correction.
quote:
The screen normally displays advertisements and wasn't intended as a stand-in for the real sky, according to Salon, but the choice of display in that moment was nonetheless ironic. It was also reminiscent of another in Hong Kong, which intentionally erected a fake sky when smog blanketed its buildings and harbor.
The Guardian reports that on Thursday, pollution levels in Beijing skyrocketed to more than 20 times the level considered unhealthy by the World Health Organization. Levels of fine particulate matter in the air, known as PM2.5, reached around 500 micrograms per cubic meter, which is thought to be the highest reading since January 2013.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by marc9000, posted 01-19-2014 7:44 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 164 of 184 (716926)
01-22-2014 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
01-05-2014 4:04 PM


For to investigate or wish to know the causes of natural thingswhether the sun is as great as it appears to be, or is many times greater than the whole of this earth; also whether the moon be spherical or concave; and whether the stars are fixed to the heaven, or are borne with free course through the air; of what magnitude the heaven itself is, of what material it is composed; whether it is at rest and immoveable, or is turned round with incredible swiftness; how great is the thickness of the earth, or on what foundations it is poised and suspended, to wish to comprehend these things, I say, by disputation and conjectures, is as though we should wish to discuss what we may suppose to be the character of a city in some very remote country, which we have never seen, and of which we have heard nothing more than the name. If we should claim to ourselves knowledge in a matter of this kind, which cannot be known, should we not appear to be mad, in venturing to affirm that in which we may be refuted?
[...]
They saw the courses of the stars travelling towards the west; they saw that the sun and the moon always set towards the same quarter, and rise from the same. But since they did not perceive what contrivance regulated their courses, nor how they returned from the west to the east, but supposed that the heaven itself sloped downwards in every direction, which appearance it must present on account of its immense breadth, they thought that the world is round like a ball
[...] But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as we see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies which are light, as mist, smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another; but that I sometimes imagine that they either discuss philosophy for the sake of a jest, or purposely and knowingly undertake to defend falsehoods, as if to exercise or display their talents on false subjects.
--- Lactantius, Divine Institutes, book 3

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 01-05-2014 4:04 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 165 of 184 (716954)
01-22-2014 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by marc9000
01-14-2014 10:01 PM


Re: Other sources of knowledge
To stop these crazy liberals from enacting measures that reduce pollution, seek alternative energy sources, minimize harm to non-human species? Oh what a miserable world this would be if that happened :sarcasm:
Have you ever heard the phrase "Give me liberty or give me death"? Is that just a talk-radio joke, or do you think it was actually said during deliberations of the U.S. founding? If you believe it happened, what do you think inspired someone to be that passionate about liberty?
Well you(mankind) might be given the 2nd option in that choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by marc9000, posted 01-14-2014 10:01 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024