Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
96 online now:
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,014 Year: 5,126/6,534 Month: 546/794 Week: 37/135 Day: 14/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trump and Trump supporters keep using the Y2K Fallacy, and it is driving me crazy
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 794
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 121 of 190 (888124)
09-05-2021 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by glowby
08-08-2021 5:41 PM


Re: Made for TV and denier distortions
You are incorrect.

The source was, in fact, James Hansen. His West Side Highway prediction assumed a 100% increase in CO2.
Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
There's been about a 30% increase (so far) and the sea level rise measured (so far) is in centimeters, not tens of meters.
Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide | NOAA Climate.gov

You would know this if you'd bothered to read my post
https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=885382#m885382

Sigh.

Nobody reads my posts. I don't know why I bother posting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by glowby, posted 08-08-2021 5:41 PM glowby has taken no action

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 794
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 122 of 190 (888125)
09-05-2021 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Percy
08-04-2021 12:19 PM


I posted the sources at
https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=885382#m885382

I clearly wasn't implying they were some sort of consensus, merely pointing out that if you're going to try to persuade people to do something about the environment (which is a good thing to be doing, whether it involves reducing CO2 emissions or heavy metal pollution or agricultural nitrate runoff or . . . ) it helps if you're accurate, rather than hyperbolic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 08-04-2021 12:19 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by AZPaul3, posted 09-05-2021 5:27 PM Sarah Bellum has replied
 Message 126 by Percy, posted 09-06-2021 10:14 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19611
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 123 of 190 (888128)
09-05-2021 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Sarah Bellum
09-05-2021 11:48 AM


Sarah Bellum writes:

There's hardly any point in making an artificial distinction, FaceBook bad, EvC good...


It isn't an artificial distinction. EvC is fact-checked by its members, with links to the actual facts.

Sarah Bellum writes:

...four legs good, two legs . . .


You're misusing that image. The pigs started the "two legs bad" chant but then they became just like the two-legged villains. The equivalent would be EvC changing to become just like Facebook.

Edited by ringo, : Srelling.


"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Sarah Bellum, posted 09-05-2021 11:48 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Sarah Bellum, posted 11-21-2021 1:26 PM ringo has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6735
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 124 of 190 (888130)
09-05-2021 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Sarah Bellum
09-05-2021 12:01 PM


... it helps if you're accurate, rather than hyperbolic.

You mean like reason people out of their comfort zone ideas that climate change is a hoax? It's the sun, it's natural, burn baby burn is ok? Who needs spiders and wasps anyway? My 401k is full of big carbon cuz that's the best? It's slow and there's plenty of time?

Well, people can't be reasoned out of ideas they weren't reasoned into in the first place.
Message 118

So scare the shit out of the stupid ones. They're going to watch it happening eventually anyway.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Sarah Bellum, posted 09-05-2021 12:01 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Sarah Bellum, posted 11-21-2021 1:27 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6735
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 125 of 190 (888131)
09-05-2021 6:26 PM


It's coming for you!
If it helps get dumb peoples’ attention then hyperbole can be quite effective.

Populations that are scared can lead to major social movements. Just ask the dictators past and present.

Our global crisis is worse than we thought and deteriorating faster than we thought. People should be scared.

Hyperbolic catastrophic climate dystopian memes need to be all the rage. If the fear engulfs the sheeple to the point of action then maybe we can forestall the worst of this for a few more centuries. Dystopian propaganda to the rescue. Thank you, Dr. Goebbels.

There should be an established funded international Bureau of Hyperbole: Climate Division for funding dystopian disaster flix in Hollywood, Bollywood and all points in between. Propaganda pushes in textbooks, movies, videos, memes, tons of memes and then more memes. Scare the ever-loving’ crap out of people.

Yeah, it intellectually hurts, but with the shape we’re presently in we gotta try everything.

Now is the time for each to find their own motivations. You are a secondary character in a dystopian apocalyptic horror movie. Act like it.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20829
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 126 of 190 (888142)
09-06-2021 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Sarah Bellum
09-05-2021 12:01 PM


Sarah Bellum writes:

if you're going to try to persuade people to do something about the environment...it helps if you're accurate, rather than hyperbolic.

I think what you said earlier in Message 118 applies better:

Well, people can't be reasoned out of ideas they weren't reasoned into in the first place.

For those who are unaffected by facts and rational arguments, what's the right approach? If there's an approach that would convince them to do the right thing, would it be okay to use it even if it were totally untrue?

It feels unethical, but if they're doing the wrong thing for untrue reasons, would it really be wrong to convince them to do the right thing for untrue reasons? Or do ethical considerations override?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Sarah Bellum, posted 09-05-2021 12:01 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Sarah Bellum, posted 11-21-2021 1:30 PM Percy has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 794
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 127 of 190 (889379)
11-21-2021 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ringo
09-05-2021 2:32 PM


As far as I can see, the "fact-checking" in both places consists of some posters looking at other peoples' posts and doing some research (or not, as the case may be) before making replies to dispute (or agree with) those posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ringo, posted 09-05-2021 2:32 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by ringo, posted 11-23-2021 11:06 AM Sarah Bellum has replied
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 11-23-2021 4:18 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 794
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 128 of 190 (889380)
11-21-2021 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by AZPaul3
09-05-2021 5:27 PM


Oh, by all means, scare them.

But if the scary things you say turn out to be untrue, then you've shot yourself in the foot, haven't you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by AZPaul3, posted 09-05-2021 5:27 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by AZPaul3, posted 11-22-2021 3:58 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 794
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 129 of 190 (889381)
11-21-2021 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Percy
09-06-2021 10:14 AM


If it feels unethical, it probably is. Besides, crying wolf (which is what inaccurate predictions are, really) is unlikely to convince anyone, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Percy, posted 09-06-2021 10:14 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by vimesey, posted 11-22-2021 3:37 PM Sarah Bellum has replied
 Message 134 by Percy, posted 11-23-2021 9:34 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1316
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 130 of 190 (889384)
11-22-2021 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Sarah Bellum
11-21-2021 1:30 PM


Besides, crying wolf (which is what inaccurate predictions are, really) is unlikely to convince anyone, isn't it?

The fact that somewhere not far off half of Americans believe that the Presidential vote was "stolen" and that QAnon (home of some of the world's most ludicrous conspiracy theories) is the bringer of The Real Truth (TM), rather suggests otherwise.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Sarah Bellum, posted 11-21-2021 1:30 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-22-2021 4:33 PM vimesey has taken no action
 Message 144 by Sarah Bellum, posted 12-27-2021 6:42 PM vimesey has taken no action

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6735
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


(6)
Message 131 of 190 (889385)
11-22-2021 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Sarah Bellum
11-21-2021 1:27 PM


But if the scary things you say turn out to be untrue, then you've shot yourself in the foot, haven't you?

Then we will have saved the environment and humanity for nothing?

What a bummer that would be.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Sarah Bellum, posted 11-21-2021 1:27 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-22-2021 5:20 PM AZPaul3 has taken no action
 Message 145 by Sarah Bellum, posted 12-27-2021 6:43 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3345
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 132 of 190 (889386)
11-22-2021 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by vimesey
11-22-2021 3:37 PM


The fact that somewhere not far off half of Americans believe that the Presidential vote was "stolen" and that QAnon (home of some of the world's most ludicrous conspiracy theories) is the bringer of The Real Truth (TM), rather suggests otherwise.

And the funniest, but also scariest thing is that same bunch of Americans is always on the total bullshit side of every issue. It's as if their bullshit meter is wired backwards.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by vimesey, posted 11-22-2021 3:37 PM vimesey has taken no action

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3345
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


(4)
Message 133 of 190 (889387)
11-22-2021 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by AZPaul3
11-22-2021 3:58 PM


AZPaul3 writes:

But if the scary things you say turn out to be untrue, then you've shot yourself in the foot, haven't you?

Then we will have saved the environment and humanity for nothing?

What a bummer that would be.

I wonder how many of the scientists studying climate and building weather and climate models, from the 1980s to the present, and who invented more and more ways to collect data and who are the same guys looking at the data and putting the data in their computer models, modified their predictions as they collected more and more data?

I have not heard of a single climate expert who defends the predictions of their 1st model and does not keep testing it against newer data. The whole point in studying something like climate is understand it better and to keep improving our understanding.

There are a lot of idiots out there who do not understand the concept of tentativeness of scientific predictions. I think they would be genuinely bummed out if humans globally cooperated to save whatever is left of the biosphere and humanity.

Now the irony would be, if we managed to avert disaster, then the scary things you say turn out to be untrue.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by AZPaul3, posted 11-22-2021 3:58 PM AZPaul3 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by dwise1, posted 11-23-2021 10:18 AM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20829
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(3)
Message 134 of 190 (889388)
11-23-2021 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Sarah Bellum
11-21-2021 1:30 PM


Sarah Bellum writes:

If it feels unethical, it probably is.

Well of course it's unethical - that was how I framed the question. I posed a conundrum of how you justify doing good unethically, especially when battling the unethical and unscrupulous.

Besides, crying wolf (which is what inaccurate predictions are, really) is unlikely to convince anyone, isn't it?

What planet are you from? Anyway, welcome to Earth. More than half of Republicans believe Trump won the election, and a third of Americans believe Biden won through voter fraud. Trump supporting lawyers cried wolf in 60 courtrooms, Trump cried wolf to anyone who would listen, Republican enablers repeated the message ad infinitum, and it helped convince tons of people. Trump's favorite way of beginning a sentence is, "They're saying...", as in (paraphrasing) "They're saying tens of thousands of ballots were dumped in Philadelphia." Another Trump favorite is just flat out lying, as in "We were winning this election, and then the Democrats got to work and stole it from us."

So in the face of this level of unethical behavior, what is the right response? As the saying goes, a lie circles the globe six times while the truth is still lacing its shoes. "This election was stolen from us," really gets people's blood boiling and travels fast, while, "This was one of the most well-run elections in our country's history," is soporific. And, "This video shows election workers just pulling boxes of ballots out from hiding places beneath tables," sounds very disturbing and draws a great deal of concern, while explaining that the boxes were the standard secure boxes for holding ballots until counted and that election workers were following standard procedures gets a big yawn.

It was a hypothetical, and in reality probably not possible. I can't think of a way, ethically or not, to make an honest election sound more exciting than a stolen one.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Sarah Bellum, posted 11-21-2021 1:30 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Sarah Bellum, posted 12-27-2021 6:45 PM Percy has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 135 of 190 (889389)
11-23-2021 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Tanypteryx
11-22-2021 5:20 PM


There are a lot of idiots out there who do not understand the concept of tentativeness of scientific predictions.

I think it's a matter of there being basically two ways of knowing and they only know one. Similar to them being unable to understand education as being for learning about subject matter without having to believe in it because their form of "education" is solely for indoctrination (which demands belief in the subject matter).

Science's way of knowing is to study something and learn about it. Anybody who has ever learned something knows that you don't get it right at first but rather have to keep at it until we get it right. That is especially true when you are conducting self-directed research, which is basically what science does.

The other way of knowing is through revelation. Some authority tells you what's what and you accept it without question. It's perfect knowledge. In that system, there's no path to learning more and, even worse, that perfect knowledge can only become less perfect as it becomes corrupted over time.

That is why creationists keep trying to "disprove" evolution by attacking what Darwin had written and had gotten wrong (eg, his not knowing about genetics). They don't realize that we've learned a lot since Darwin because their own way of knowing doesn't have that feature. The idea of learning more is completely foreign to them.

So while they keep losing knowledge (as more and more of their "perfect knowledge" decays away), we just keep learning more and more.

 
ABE:

I think they would be genuinely bummed out if humans globally cooperated to save whatever is left of the biosphere and humanity.

This subtopic reminds me of a cartoon that I've saved away somewhere.

At an Al Gore presentation, one person in the audience turns to another and says, "But what if we save the planet and improve our lives immensely and it turns out to all be for nothing?"

Edited by dwise1, : ABE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-22-2021 5:20 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-23-2021 11:02 AM dwise1 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022