When knowledge is suppressed we all lose.

[Grat3fulh3ad]

It has nothing to do with belief. They simply use the data observed about gravity and propulsion. They don't have to believe anything about what it demonstrates. A working understanding is more like it.

lmao at your semantic squirming.

believe |biˈlēv|
verb [ trans. ]
1 accept (something) as true

Why use data you do not believe (accept to be true)?

you're being silly.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

"Escalated to obscurity" - I kind of like that. That's what happens sometimes, yes.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

"Good thing every scientist out there is trying to come up with a more accurate model than his peers."

I suppose they are no longer scientists but there are humans working in research/science that just want to keep their jobs and get funding for their projects from people who use political rhetoric to get the conclusions they want using scientific data.

It is good to know I am not a denialist also. I am a skeptic who believes the line between science and political rhetoric has been blurred, often on purpose.
'

Sure, I agree, it has been blurred all to often.

That's why I encourage everyone to look at the data for themselves and learn how to understand what it means...

All I have ever encouraged anyone to do is earnestly seek the truth by digging into all of the data available.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

lmao at your semantic squirming.

believe |biˈlēv|
verb [ trans. ]
1 accept (something) as true

Why use data you do not believe (accept to be true)?

you're being silly.

I thought I explained I try not to believe anything if at all possible. Belief is the death of intelligence. It's all about probability.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

"Escalated to obscurity" - I kind of like that. That's what happens sometimes, yes.

Yeah... Well...

When you start a good thread, and then have to spend thirty pages playing nitpicker whack-a-mole, the topic can get lost amongst the trolling.

 

[dagnabit]

Yeah... Well...

When you start a good thread, and then have to spend thirty pages playing nitpicker whack-a-mole, the topic can get lost amongst the trolling.

why am i the only one who changes the settings so this thread is only 10 pages long?

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

Yeah... Well...

When you start a good thread, and then have to spend thirty pages playing nitpicker whack-a-mole, the topic can get lost amongst the trolling.

Take care my friend and let what I am saying about belief and coming to conclusions rattle around for a while. Maybe then you will see the irony of Scientific Denialism as a concept. Maybe not - it's all the same to me.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I thought I explained I try not to believe anything if at all possible. Belief is the death of intelligence. It's all about probability.

So?

Scientists still have to accept empirically verifiable facts to be true, lots of the time, in order to perform calculations and make predictions based on those observed truths.

Now... I'm done with this line of semantic silliness.
My point is well made and completely supportable.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Take care my friend and let what I am saying about belief and coming to conclusions rattle around for a while. Maybe then you will see the irony of Scientific Denialism as a concept. Maybe not - it's all the same to me.

I'm never going to see what is only there is you limit your perspective to what you want to see.
Head in the sand is never going to be my style.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

So?

Scientists still have to accept empirically verifiable facts to be true, lots of the time, in order to perform calculations and make predictions based on those observed truths.

Now... I'm done with this line of semantic silliness.
My point is well made and completely supportable.

You could make that better by adding probably in front of true. This is important. It's not semantics. It's fundamental to understanding what science is.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

why am i the only one who changes the settings so this thread is only 10 pages long?

because when I had mine set that way I used to get the occasional 'database error' from the server, and changing the setting back stopped it from happening.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

You could make that better by adding probably in front of true. This is important. It's not semantics. It's fundamental to understanding what science is.

It is about semantics.
I understand perfectly well what science is and you are merely nitpicking the way I said it.
I said nothing incorrect, I was merely a bit more general than you're happy with...

You're just grasping at straws trying to find something to say I'm wrong about...

It was comical for a bit, but now I'm bored with the childishness of your nitpicking.
If you were familiar with my postings, you'd know that I speak of the probabilistic nature of science quite often.

good nite.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

Check Aaron Davidson's paper on Science as a Belief System.

http://spaz.ca/aaron/school/science.html

I go farther than him. I don't assume for example "There exists an external objective reality." How do I know it's not an illusion? I don't bother with "Belief Revision" either. Why go to the trouble of believing something if you know you can probably understand it a better way? Good points made though, such as:

One of the greatest features of science is that it works as an algorithmic process of belief revision. No scientific belief being held can be said to be absolutely true, no matter how convincing it is. This is how science compensates for the small amount of faith it requires. All scientific beliefs are wrapped in a protective condition: A scientific belief can only be true if the basic assumptions of science are true, and absolute certainty cannot be obtained due to the problems inherited from subjectivity. All scientific statements have a built in emergency exit! Beliefs are able to change in light of new evidence or ideas.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

more 'nothing new to me'.
I've posted many dozens of posts, spanning years, on the probabilistic nature of science.

Had a quote about is as my sig for 8 months or so...

now stop the nitpicking my phraseology before you suss yourself out as a troll nic.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

It is about semantics.
I understand perfectly well what science is and you are merely nitpicking the way I said it.
I said nothing incorrect, I was merely a bit more general than you're happy with...

You're just grasping at straws trying to find something to say I'm wrong about...

It was comical for a bit, but now I'm bored with the childishness of your nitpicking.
If you were familiar with my postings, you'd know that I speak of the probabilistic nature of science quite often.

good nite.

Smell ya later Grateful.

 

[SpasticGramps]

if you dont believe in a god who will either reach down from the sky and clean it up for us, or grab those who pay a few bob each sunday to their local ped,,,, cough cough church organisers, and take them to heaven for the rapture, then why would you oppose anyone who says its bad to pump the air and oceans full of poisons and cut down the forests that generate the air we breathe?

I'll have to say. I find it interesting that you would believe there is a causal relationship of "if I don't believe in a God" then I must believe in AGW and should, by your logic, support C&T.

My only answer to that is that I'm skeptical of all modern institutions of power (modern being 100+ years). Be they organized religion institutions, political institutions, economic monetary institutions, educational institutions, or scientific institutions. They all seem to be drinking from the same trough of greed to me.

I guess I'm just skeptical. Some no doubt would call it paranoid, not that I care that they do. I don't deny there is science behind AGW and I don't deny that it may very well be true. All that I know for sure is that I don't know and if that means that I'm "wallowing in ignorance" then so be it.

I know Head likes to reference Pen and Teller. Have you ever seen the episode of "Being Green"? It's hilarious and in the end he concludes that he just doesn't know, but the industry behind "Green" movement is just that. An industry. And in the end, I don't know if there is a God and I don't know if AGW is true. I have my opinions and that is all. All I do know is that I don't know anything.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

more 'nothing new to me'.
I've posted many dozens of posts, spanning years, on the probabilistic nature of science.

Had a quote about is as my sig for 8 months or so...

now stop the nitpicking my phraseology before you suss yourself out as a troll nic.

Hence the irony. And don't call me nic.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

No irony, just your tactic of pretending there was...

Can't understand why you're here trolling me, instead of off learning the things you seemed so curious about...

 

[hoosierdaddy]

This thread is bollocks anyway.

 

[maryj315]

No irony, just your tactic of pretending there was...

Can't understand why you're here trolling me, instead of off learning the things you seemed so curious about...

You would think after almost 40 years of research thousands of peer reviewed literature open to the scrutiny of others, there should be by now a more uniformed opposing argument.

You need to look into no further than a few pages back you will find that there is no unified opposition.

All I have seen in the last few pages are political rhetoric and just plain outright trolling. With the only objective in mind is to get the thread closed.

When knowledge is suppressed brought us death panels last summer and out for this summer, they imply our current president along with all Muslims are going to get us.

Unfortunate as it may be these tactics work. Some of the same organizations that campaigned for the tobacco industry and opposed health care reform are now opposing any legislation put fourth concerning global warming.

Mj