(January 5, 2015 at 2:19 pm)polar bear Wrote: I am not talking about the fucktards like trump, but the everyday person who hears trump talk and assumes he knows something. I don't think people understand how a rise in "global" temperature affects the "global" climate.

It seems to me an entirely American thing for people to admire rich folks as if being rich makes you somehow special. Must be a remnant of the illusion that everybody can make it. Trump's just an ordinary crook, just like many of them are. They only look out for their own wellbeing and maybe for their cronies. It's just like the mob, with the difference that the mob actually is more honest in it's approach. They don't pretend.

(January 5, 2015 at 6:43 pm)abaris Wrote:

(January 5, 2015 at 2:19 pm)polar bear Wrote: I am not talking about the fucktards like trump, but the everyday person who hears trump talk and assumes he knows something. I don't think people understand how a rise in "global" temperature affects the "global" climate.

It seems to me an entirely American thing for people to admire rich folks as if being rich makes you somehow special.

It is at least more prevalent, and I think it is for the reason you mention. You have to keep up the illusion of the American Dream that you, too, can make it one day. Part of that is protecting and worshipping other people's wealth.

(January 5, 2015 at 6:35 pm)JuliaL Wrote: We have no control group for the Earth unless maybe you look at Venus.
We are only going to be able to run the experiment once.

Ok you really don't know how science works.

(January 5, 2015 at 6:35 pm)JuliaL Wrote: Metaphor:
If you see a gun in your hand and a trustworthy friend tells you it might be loaded and you want to live, it is unwise to point it at your head and pull the trigger.
It is not that the conclusions of the climatologists pointing to anthropogenic climate change are certain, it is that if they are right, then the consequences are so dire that the rational decision is to act to avoid them. Changing the basic nature of culture and especially the economy has a very long lag time. Doubters and deniers are less influential than they were. But by the time we have conclusive evidence for everybody the die will have been irretrievably cast.
I'm stockpiling food. Not because I think the end of the world is definitely coming, but because I believe in plausible scenarios in which this is my best move for me and mine. And because the carrying cost and availability of food stocks is quite low in comparison to my current net worth. Cheap insurance. But it may not be enough. Note: I do not have a bomb shelter.

Firstly: YOU ARE A DOOMS DAY PREPPER!

Secondly: I agree with your analogy. But I've said that already. So what's the problem? What motivated you to write this?

(January 5, 2015 at 5:40 pm)BlackMason Wrote: I agree that the scientific conclusion has INDUCTIVE strength. But let's not fuck around and pretend it has DEDUCTIVE strength.

Interesting. Can you elaborate on what this distinction means in our case here? I don't see how your use of these words adds anything except needlessly simplistic jargon to our understanding of the issue.

Quote:Oh and by the way your attempt to sound smart by mentioning double blind placebo is stupid. Placebos are for medicine and not raw science.

Haha, I'm aware of that. I don't need to try sounding smarter using fancy words, I was just snarkily exaggerating your position a bit to drive home my point that you make unreasonable demands towards climate science.

(January 6, 2015 at 4:26 am)Alex K Wrote: Interesting. Can you elaborate on what this distinction means in our case here? I don't see how your use of these words adds anything except needlessly simplistic jargon to our understanding of the issue.

Yeah sure. I think it's of fundamental importance to actually understand what science is if you're going to talk about it. First, science is tentative. This means that if we find new information in the future it could turn our previous conclusions on their head. Science does not make absolute claims. Most of the arguments that science makes are actually invalid. But what they lack in validity they more than make up for in inductive strength. What is this inductive reasoning you ask? Read on if you're interested

Inductive reasoning and validity:
The best way to explain inductive reasoning is by way of example:


The premise "Jane fell off a building" is strong enough for us to accept the conclusion that "Jane is dead". But watch this:


Notice that the inclusion of the second premise makes us believe the conclusion less than in the first example. This notion of changing our willingness to accept the conclusion given the premises is known as inductive strength.

Now moving on to validity. An argument is valid if the premises logically entail the conclusion. For example in the first argument with only one premise, falling off a building does not entail death. Perhaps Jane fell off the first floor and broke her arm. She still fell off the building but that does not necessitate death. So the argument is actually invalid. This is the same for the second argument with the swimming component added.

Unlike science, mathematics uses DEDUCTIVE reasoning. This means that if you construct your proof correctly your conclusion will ALWAYS be right no matter what. It doesn't matter if the pope becomes black or new discoveries come into play. If you constructed your proof correctly your conclusion will always be right! This is the power of maths!

(January 6, 2015 at 4:26 am)Alex K Wrote: Haha, I'm aware of that. I don't need to try sounding smarter using fancy words, I was just snarkily exaggerating your position a bit to drive home my point that you make unreasonable demands towards climate science.

I don't make unreasonable demands. I think you came here thinking you could have a conversation of this nature with me. But you needed a little fast tracking so you could understand my post in a better context. I hope I've cleared things up a little.

---

I think it's worth while for me to explain the way I operate with regard to these expert opinions. Someone mentioned that 99.9% of scientists agree. That is not enough for me to accept based on this. Yes it does have some persuasive value but I'd rather find out how they performed the experiments. What was the control? What did the data say? Were there any significant assumptions made? How do they affect the credibility of the conclusions?

Case and point that demonstrates the importance to understand the data. In a previous post in this thread I showed how the same data actually pointed to rapid climate change occurring naturally. THEREFORE, I NEED MORE DEMONSTRATION TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION. I then examine the control. THERE IS NO CONTROL. THEREFORE, I AM NOT SATISFIED although I agree on a lesser level.

Maybe Trump doesn't need to STFU!

(January 6, 2015 at 7:54 am)BlackMason Wrote:

(January 6, 2015 at 4:26 am)Alex K Wrote: Interesting. Can you elaborate on what this distinction means in our case here? I don't see how your use of these words adds anything except needlessly simplistic jargon to our understanding of the issue.

Yeah sure. I think it's of fundamental importance to actually understand what science is if you're going to talk about it. First, science is tentative.
This means that if we find new information in the future it could turn our previous conclusions on their head. Science does not make absolute claims.

Yes, of course, it doesn't.

Quote:Most of the arguments that science makes are actually invalid.

Wait, now you lost me. Where does science make invalid arguments?

Quote:But what they lack in validity they more than make up for in inductive strength. What is this inductive reasoning you ask? Read on if you're interested

Inductive reasoning and validity:
[...] This is the power of maths!

Oh, I see, tentative scientific conclusions, if we did treat them like absolute deductions, would be invalid. But we don't.

Also, I don't understand your logic concerning your criticism of climate science: thanks for the kindergarden lecture on the difference between mathematics and "science", where you've explained that science cannot use deduction of conclusions from empirical observations. Why though do you single out above commentary on the greenhouse effect in your criticism for lacking strict deductive power, when no scientific finding can have that? I'd even go further and say that a conclusion based on well-established physical laws bears more resemblance to deductive reasoning than a more or less theory-free experiment with a control group.

Quote:

(January 6, 2015 at 4:26 am)Alex K Wrote: Haha, I'm aware of that. I don't need to try sounding smarter using fancy words, I was just snarkily exaggerating your position a bit to drive home my point that you make unreasonable demands towards climate science.

I don't make unreasonable demands. I think you came here thinking you could have a conversation of this nature with me. But you needed a little fast tracking so you could understand my post in a better context. I hope I've cleared things up a little.

Heh, are we pompous much?

---

(January 6, 2015 at 7:54 am)BlackMason Wrote: I think it's worth while for me to explain the way I operate with regard to these expert opinions. Someone mentioned that 99.9% of scientists agree. That is not enough for me to accept based on this. Yes it does have some persuasive value but I'd rather find out how they performed the experiments. What was the control? What did the data say? Were there any significant assumptions made? How do they affect the credibility of the conclusions?

Case and point that demonstrates the importance to understand the data. In a previous post in this thread I showed how the same data actually pointed to rapid climate change occurring naturally. THEREFORE, I NEED MORE DEMONSTRATION TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION. I then examine the control. THERE IS NO CONTROL. THEREFORE, I AM NOT SATISFIED although I agree on a lesser level.

Maybe Trump doesn't need to STFU!

And meanwhile you have no problem to tentatively accept the opposite conclusion even though the weight of evidence is against it, because you like it better. All your caps locks and simple minded logic lectures don't hide that.

Alex, you have worn out my patience. You have proven yourself to be unreasonable. By your responses I gather that you still don't understand what I've said. I don't see how mocking the delivery of my knowledge helps your case when you should be thanking me for educating you. You clearly didn't know this stuff yet you act as if you did. You're just one of many people on forums like this that act like you understand the shit you speak when you actually don't. Perhaps you should read over my previous post over and over until you can understand where I'm coming from. Until then I'm done.

Pretty pathetic from a guy who claims science as a religion.

*Snore* please...

---

(January 6, 2015 at 9:33 am)BlackMason Wrote: Pretty pathetic from a guy who claims science as a religion.

Well duh. I had atheist there until someone complained that that wasn't ok. So I changed it. damned if you do, damned if you don't...