Cycles


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Cycles

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 9 · Next
Author Message
OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13704
Credit: 31,712,403
RAC: 12,538
United States
Message 1515187 - Posted: 12 May 2014, 22:01:51 UTC - in response to Message 1515086.

So in other words, a standard schmuck with an opinion and not someone qualified to interpret the science accurately.


Even standard schmucks can be intelligent and informed.


Intelligent and informed doesn't mean an expert in a given field of study. There are a lot of intelligent and informed people, but who they get their information from and how they interpret it will have a lot to do with the conclusions they draw, right or wrong.

Jack
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 02
Posts: 60
Credit: 474,137
RAC: 1,229
United States
Message 1515195 - Posted: 12 May 2014, 22:18:22 UTC - in response to Message 1515085.

We have more important things to worry about than a warming of the planet. If we don't survive the nuclear threat, there will be no one left to worry about what happens after.

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/20-mishaps-maybe-caused-nuclear-war.htm


Hi Jack :)

Ever tried multi-tasking? :)


Don't ever say that near an airport. ;)

I've never been good at multi-tasking. To me it's a matter of priorities. Doesn't make good sense to me to plant a garden downstream from a dam if the dam is about to go. Best put all my efforts into fixing the dam first.
____________
Jack

Jack
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 02
Posts: 60
Credit: 474,137
RAC: 1,229
United States
Message 1515201 - Posted: 12 May 2014, 22:39:34 UTC - in response to Message 1515092.

So in other words, a standard schmuck with an opinion and not someone qualified to interpret the science accurately.


Even standard schmucks can be intelligent and informed.

This one in particular however, is not.


I have trouble putting one down for his opinion, because in so doing, I'm putting myself above him/her. He has his (opinion), and you have yours. You're both entitled. I don't know his background, nor yours either. Time will tell who's correct or if either are correct. Even scientists are wrong at times and there are a few examples of that in this thread. I've been around the block a few times and, even though my memory is slipping, I can remember a few times they were wrong. Given time to think, I might come up with more than a few.

Isn't that why most scientists refer to global warming as a theory? A theory can be proven right or wrong, but until it is, it is really just an educated guess.

Aren't scientists relying mostly on computer models? What if the computer programs are wrong? People wrote them, and people make mistakes. A computer error almost set off a nuclear attack.
____________
Jack

Batter UpProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,858,651
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1515204 - Posted: 12 May 2014, 22:49:16 UTC
Last modified: 12 May 2014, 22:51:24 UTC

Wile you people are worrying about a few "political" degrees temperature over in a science thread we are saving the Earth from the next asteroid strike. Now that is real provable science but the margin of uncertainty is so great some possible impacts have a range of ten years and 1.5 times plus or minus energy on impact; if any impact even occurs. Climate warmers can't tell me if it will rain or not past seven days out.

So how can science tell us what will happen decades from now when it can't tell me what will happen a fortnight from now?
____________

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2661
Credit: 5,500,430
RAC: 6,537
United States
Message 1515207 - Posted: 12 May 2014, 22:59:54 UTC - in response to Message 1515201.

A theory can be proven right or wrong, but until it is, it is really just an educated guess.

No, an educated guess is called a hypothesis, mere speculation, when evidence supports the hypothesis it becomes theory.
____________

Batter UpProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,858,651
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1515209 - Posted: 12 May 2014, 23:03:00 UTC - in response to Message 1515207.
Last modified: 12 May 2014, 23:04:23 UTC

A theory can be proven right or wrong, but until it is, it is really just an educated guess.

No, an educated guess is called a hypothesis, mere speculation, when evidence supports the hypothesis it becomes theory.

And your provable and repeatable evidence that if we do whatever you want will stop whatever you want is where? Or are we just talking semantics?
____________

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13704
Credit: 31,712,403
RAC: 12,538
United States
Message 1515215 - Posted: 12 May 2014, 23:20:59 UTC - in response to Message 1515201.
Last modified: 12 May 2014, 23:53:25 UTC

So in other words, a standard schmuck with an opinion and not someone qualified to interpret the science accurately.


Even standard schmucks can be intelligent and informed.

This one in particular however, is not.


I have trouble putting one down for his opinion, because in so doing, I'm putting myself above him/her.


But that's how it works. Some people's opinions should be put above other people's if they know what they're talking about and have specific training in a field. Just as you should never put a Creationist/Intelligent Design Proponent up against a biologist and state that their opinions hold equal weight. They do not.

He has his (opinion), and you have yours. You're both entitled. I don't know his background, nor yours either.


Sure, but people that can back their statements with facts and not just unsubstantiated opinion makes all the difference. I would ask a physicist/chemist about climate change more than I would some dude who has his own blog and looks for holes in a theory he doesn't subscribe to because he doesn't really comprehend the science.

Time will tell who's correct or if either are correct. Even scientists are wrong at times and there are a few examples of that in this thread. I've been around the block a few times and, even though my memory is slipping, I can remember a few times they were wrong. Given time to think, I might come up with more than a few.


Your last "proof" of scientists being wrong indicated that only a small percentage of unqualified professionals stated the Earth was cooling, less than 6%, but the media seized upon it and ran with it. This doesn't make the scientists wrong, it means the media, and by extension some people, were wrong about the conclusions.

Isn't that why most scientists refer to global warming as a theory? A theory can be proven right or wrong, but until it is, it is really just an educated guess.


No. You misunderstand the meaning of the word Theory in a scientific context. A theory is the most proven idea that supports the observable and falsifiable evidence at hand. This means it is backed by empirical observation and not just an "educated guess". Laymen tend to throw around the word "theory" too much that most people have equated it with just an educated opinion when that's not the case.

Aren't scientists relying mostly on computer models? What if the computer programs are wrong? People wrote them, and people make mistakes. A computer error almost set off a nuclear attack.


Well yes, but the data that is input is based upon what we have observed. They don't just punch in a bunch of random data and spit out whatever they want. There's far more to it than that.


What really is at fault here is the lack of scientists that can speak and explain at a normal level, so the media is relied upon to relay that information. Sometimes the information disseminated has been wrong, leading to a distrust of any scientific announcement that sounds alarming, so people tend to dismiss it rather than try to understand it, such as what you've done here. Compound that issue with the money to be made in industry, and the propaganda against scientific findings (such as the aforementioned lead in the environment by way of leaded gasoline and other industrial uses) and one begins to see the clear picture of why that distrust is fully utilized to Big Money's advantage - and a bonus comes in by claiming it is the science where the money is to be made!

Jack
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 02
Posts: 60
Credit: 474,137
RAC: 1,229
United States
Message 1515230 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 0:06:55 UTC - in response to Message 1515215.

That's all well and good. I understand everything you have pointed out. My point is that I don't know you or your background. To me, you're just a voice on a forum. Intelligent to be sure. Educated, yep! But so is the other guy. Unless I know the difference, I can't give your opinion any more weight than his.

As to the computer model, it can only do what the programmer told it to do, regardless of the data input. And programs can be wrong. It happens all the time. Not saying it is, just saying that it could be. I'm also saying scientific studies can be wrong. We all know of some that have been in the past.

I fully agree that the media is responsible for much and probably even most of the misinformation we receive. There is so much BS floating around it is difficult to know who to believe. Mr. Al Gore is not a scientist, but he believes he is an expert and the media hyped his movie as fact. Turns out much of it is/was false. The polar bears didn't drown and the Northern ice cap is still there. Some glaciers are receding, but some are advancing. Even scientific reports are filled with qualifiers.....if, may, might, possible, etc. Which leads one to think they are not sure of the findings and doing a CYA just in case.

Anyway, that's my perspective. Far different than yours, but from where I stand that's what things look like.
____________
Jack

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2661
Credit: 5,500,430
RAC: 6,537
United States
Message 1515237 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 0:20:29 UTC - in response to Message 1515209.

A theory can be proven right or wrong, but until it is, it is really just an educated guess.

No, an educated guess is called a hypothesis, mere speculation, when evidence supports the hypothesis it becomes theory.

And your provable and repeatable evidence that if we do whatever you want will stop whatever you want is where? Or are we just talking semantics?

No my point is that if you use words incorrectly how can anyone understand what you are trying to express.
____________

Batter UpProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,858,651
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1515241 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 0:29:17 UTC - in response to Message 1515237.


No my point is that if you use words incorrectly how can anyone understand what you are trying to express.

On a board with many who's first language is not English words have to be given a broad meaning. I was criticized for pointing out that a CPU's cores are not the same as a SETI processor. That was in Number Crunching when the words should be as exact as possible too.
____________

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13704
Credit: 31,712,403
RAC: 12,538
United States
Message 1515246 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 0:39:40 UTC - in response to Message 1515230.
Last modified: 13 May 2014, 0:45:29 UTC

That's all well and good. I understand everything you have pointed out. My point is that I don't know you or your background. To me, you're just a voice on a forum. Intelligent to be sure. Educated, yep! But so is the other guy. Unless I know the difference, I can't give your opinion any more weight than his.


Agreed. You shouldn't give me any more weight then him unless I can prove myself to be qualified to talk about it. Which is ultimately my point. If you want the correct information, go to a qualified professional, not just some voice on the internet.

As to the computer model, it can only do what the programmer told it to do, regardless of the data input. And programs can be wrong. It happens all the time. Not saying it is, just saying that it could be. I'm also saying scientific studies can be wrong. We all know of some that have been in the past.


Yes, the input data could be wrong. However, the chances of that data being wrong with each passing decade of research becomes slimmer and slimmer. Yes, anyone who studies probabilities and chances knows that there is always a chance. As someone who works very closely with computers, I am qualified to professionally agree with you that programs can be wrong - which is why it is so important to have others check our work. With each successive version, theoretically the software becomes that much better. Not sure I'd want to hinge an argument on computers being wrong though. Our modeling has become quite adept at even sometimes surprising scientists who study data that it isn't purely a matter of putting in data to get what they want to "hear"; the output can sometimes shed light on things they were previously unaware of, which opens all new doors for study.

And yes, studies can be wrong. I'm just not so sure this one is, otherwise there'd be a lot more disagreement in the scientific community; each trying to disprove the other through interpretation of the data. Instead, we have 97% of scientists agreeing that human-induced climate change is real. If a bunch of highly trained CPAs told you that you have a 97% chance to gain a better retirement fund through investing in a specific stock, provide you with the data to back themselves up, and peers confirm the data, you wouldn't pass up the opportunity saying "well, your data could be wrong", would you?

Anyway, that's my perspective. Far different than yours, but from where I stand that's what things look like.


I don't know that it is necessarily different. You have simply come to a different conclusion because of your distrust. Completely understandable. The world has become quite complex and it can be very difficult to understand it all. I'm not a very trusting person by nature myself. I usually think people are trying to take me for a ride due to past experiences. But I'm learning who to trust and why I put my trust into the wrong people previously. That can go a long way to understanding where the distrust from science is coming from.

I also think the distrust comes from another old adage: if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. If 97% of the scientists agree, that's a very large percentage. Surely there's not enough skepticism to keep them in check if they all agree, right? Surely, if they agree that much, it's "too good to be true" and therefore the study is probably wrong... right? Except that adage isn't always the best philosophy to use when choosing what to believe in science - though it is frequently used by people like me who are naturally untrusting. ;-) I'm guessing in that regard we are probably alike.

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2661
Credit: 5,500,430
RAC: 6,537
United States
Message 1515254 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 1:09:30 UTC - in response to Message 1515241.


No my point is that if you use words incorrectly how can anyone understand what you are trying to express.

On a board with many who's first language is not English words have to be given a broad meaning. I was criticized for pointing out that a CPU's cores are not the same as a SETI processor. That was in Number Crunching when the words should be as exact as possible too.

And the person who criticized you was very wrong, you were pointing out a fundamental definition. Words need to have meaning if discourse is to be successful.
____________

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2661
Credit: 5,500,430
RAC: 6,537
United States
Message 1515275 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 2:01:09 UTC - in response to Message 1515246.
Last modified: 13 May 2014, 2:02:01 UTC

I also think the distrust comes from another old adage: if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. If 97% of the scientists agree, that's a very large percentage. Surely there's not enough skepticism to keep them in check if they all agree, right? Surely, if they agree that much, it's "too good to be true" and therefore the study is probably wrong... right? Except that adage isn't always the best philosophy to use when choosing what to believe in science - though it is frequently used by people like me who are naturally untrusting. ;-) I'm guessing in that regard we are probably alike.

OzzFan, my father, brother, his wife and several cousins are physicians, they believe in the "germ theory" and I accept their education I do not suscribe to faith healing.
I am not a skeptic on this subject.
To me on the subject of climate change the evidence is quite compelling. It is changeing faster than we have been able to find in the geologic record. Are we the sole cause, probably not, are we a component, all signs say yes.
____________

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13704
Credit: 31,712,403
RAC: 12,538
United States
Message 1515288 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 2:31:42 UTC - in response to Message 1515254.


No my point is that if you use words incorrectly how can anyone understand what you are trying to express.

On a board with many who's first language is not English words have to be given a broad meaning. I was criticized for pointing out that a CPU's cores are not the same as a SETI processor. That was in Number Crunching when the words should be as exact as possible too.

And the person who criticized you was very wrong, you were pointing out a fundamental definition. Words need to have meaning if discourse is to be successful.


And on the other hand, while I accept that laymen may not know the proper usage of the term and it is up to professionals to translate what a laymen is trying to say into technical terms, it would be helpful if people used the proper agreed upon definition to make communication clear - a prerequisite of being successful. An ongoing battle for sure. In that regard, I wouldn't say the person was wrong, and without knowing context I don't know that Batter Up was "criticized" or simply corrected, which people in the know tend to do.

Message 1515291 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 2:43:48 UTC

An H B O COmedy shOw Last Night put 97 "Climate Scientists" on the set, along with the Other 3 Percent.

97 People and 3 People. FUN KNEE.

The 97 Percent All Talked At Once, Drowning Out the 3. ROTFLMAO.

Here's da vid. It's during last minute or so.

97 to 3 hehehe

So True.

fO shO fO evA

' '
____________


OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13704
Credit: 31,712,403
RAC: 12,538
United States
Message 1515294 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 2:45:17 UTC - in response to Message 1515275.

I also think the distrust comes from another old adage: if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. If 97% of the scientists agree, that's a very large percentage. Surely there's not enough skepticism to keep them in check if they all agree, right? Surely, if they agree that much, it's "too good to be true" and therefore the study is probably wrong... right? Except that adage isn't always the best philosophy to use when choosing what to believe in science - though it is frequently used by people like me who are naturally untrusting. ;-) I'm guessing in that regard we are probably alike.

OzzFan, my father, brother, his wife and several cousins are physicians, they believe in the "germ theory" and I accept their education I do not suscribe to faith healing.


Sure, they have education, but would they be considered experts in their field, and do they submit research to peer-reviewed physicians journals expounding their belief in germ theory? Surely educated doesn't mean expert, but I get the point you're driving at. I also know physicians that are good at what they do, yet subscribe to non-mainstream views. Frequently those are the outliers; the 3%. My guess is that 3% has a larger numerical presence in physicians than it does in physicists, meaning the probability of running into a physician with non-mainstream views is greater. ;-)

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13704
Credit: 31,712,403
RAC: 12,538
United States
Message 1515296 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 2:50:35 UTC - in response to Message 1515291.

The 97 Percent All Talked At Once, Drowning Out the 3. ROTFLMAO.


Ah yes, the more there are, the louder their voices, so surely they mustn't be right simply because they agree, right? Suddenly science is about an oppressed minority of scientists unable to out-voice the competition. heh. Talk about FUN KNEE FO SHO.

Profile Bill Walker
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 99
Posts: 3456
Credit: 2,212,935
RAC: 950
Canada
Message 1515300 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 3:03:46 UTC - in response to Message 1515201.

Isn't that why most scientists refer to global warming as a theory? A theory can be proven right or wrong, but until it is, it is really just an educated guess.


Most scientists refer to gravity as a theory as well.
____________

anniet
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 5045
Credit: 229,557
RAC: 374
United Kingdom
Message 1515301 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 3:07:46 UTC - in response to Message 1515300.

Isn't that why most scientists refer to global warming as a theory? A theory can be proven right or wrong, but until it is, it is really just an educated guess.


Most scientists refer to gravity as a theory as well.


...and relativity

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8777
Credit: 25,929,003
RAC: 17,473
United Kingdom
Message 1515304 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 3:15:46 UTC

Most of physics, and probably the other sciences, are theories, unless they can be proven mathematically.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 9 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Cycles

Copyright © 2014 University of California