Well, that would be where you'd start in rebutting this claim, absolutely. The warning bells came for me when he tried to set nuclear energy up as an exact flip-side of the climate issue.
Conservatism.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science - and Reality
- Thread starter Learn2read
- Start date
- Status
Well, that would be where you'd start in rebutting this claim, absolutely. The warning bells came for me when he tried to set nuclear energy up as an exact flip-side of the climate issue.
Conservatism.
TheChocolateWar
Member
Bill gates could have stolen all the monies. Not likely, but can't rule it out.
Ok, absurd example, but shows a point. It isn't necessary that the shorted loans are the only, major, or even a cause in the financial meltdown in the absence of further evidence.
Better men than you have tried, and as far as I know, their results have boiled down to one truth, which turned out to be debatable.
ITT: People who need to take a philosophy of science course. Well, one person.
Getting back to the OP, I have a few books on the topic-at-hand (The Believing Brain, The Political Brain) and there are issues with these types of reports to say the least, but generally I'm convinced critical thinking leads to liberalism -- in most cases. The Believing Brain attempts a critique of similar books, but I wouldn't call it convincing. TBB draws a false equivalency between liberal and conservative belief (i.e., it claims that ideologies are simply a product of two inherently equal worldviews). It goes on to condemn those who view conservative beliefs as less valid by describing dozens of cognitive biases all humans are subject to. TTB also attempts to identify liberal bias amongst scientists without accounting for why it's there. It's a mess, really, but the rest of the book is alright.
Getting back to the OP, I have a few books on the topic-at-hand (The Believing Brain, The Political Brain) and there are issues with these types of reports to say the least, but generally I'm convinced critical thinking leads to liberalism -- in most cases. The Believing Brain attempts a critique of similar books, but I wouldn't call it convincing. TBB draws a false equivalency between liberal and conservative belief (i.e., it claims that ideologies are simply a product of two inherently equal worldviews). It goes on to condemn those who view conservative beliefs as less valid by describing dozens of cognitive biases all humans are subject to. TTB also attempts to identify liberal bias amongst scientists without accounting for why it's there. It's a mess, really, but the rest of the book is alright.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Are we really saying that science is on equal footing with religion because it requires faith in the idea that "reality is comprehensible"?
EDIT: I shouldn't say you're ignoring it. You're ignoring its role. The whole point of plausibility and accuracy is so that we follow trains of thought that will likely lead us to increasingly accurate models of reality.
You're completely ignoring the plausibility of various claims. Although anything is theoretically possible we use evidence and, to a lesser extent, inductive reasoning to determine which claims are more plausibly accurate claims about reality then others.
EDIT: I shouldn't say you're ignoring it. You're ignoring its role. The whole point of plausibility and accuracy is so that we follow trains of thought that will likely lead us to increasingly accurate models of reality.
TheChocolateWar
Member
Haha.
On a more serious note, I hope there are better men than them one day who do figure it out.
Well if you think looking at one piece of datum by itself proves anything, then sure!
In what way is religion reliant on external stimulae, observation, or evidence? It is based on faith, and faith does not require external validation, or evidence of any kind. That is, in fact, the definition of the word "faith" in this context.
This isn't the source of religious faith. Religious faith is not based on actually seeing demons or angels, but on an internal mechanism. Christians call this mechanism "Grace," (Romans 5: 1-2) but most religions have a similar construct.
TheChocolateWar
Member
I was giving religion as much benefit of the doubt for a purpose. To make it easier for proponents of science to swallow intellectual modesty. It is a two step argument; get them to admit the limitations of external world skepticism, realize they can't establish falsity, and then go on to more extreme versions of religious forms of knowledge.
OneFiftyOne
Member
I don't think that you can be a psychologically healthy person these days and not be at least somewhat skeptical of those who promote a science as 'fact' and proceed to offer a political remedy that everybody else must observe. The Nazis were convinced that it was science that decidedly concluded that the Aryan race was superior to all others, and in every way they considered significant. They surely had plenty of case studies and academic works to back up that thesis.
Are the climate change people - a good number of scientists and like-minded political class allies - doing the same thing? Could they be deceiving us for their own selfish gain? They propose a solution that involves them getting huge amounts of government funding and political influence. Wouldn't it be rational for common folks to be suspicious of that?
And why is it 'climate change'? After all, wasn't it 'global warming' for years? Who decided to change the term? And why so suddenly? Say what you want about dumbass Republicans, but remember that they did read '1984' in public high schools; so they are well aware of Orwellian language tricks such as this.
Notice I never said the word "proves."
In theory, yes, but in practice that only applies if you've created your own religion from whole cloth. Otherwise, everything you know about that religion is susceptible to changes in those external stimuli.
Lol, that's one way to put it.
Something Wicked
Member
It's not just 1 or 2 scientists that are skeptical of AGW (granted, there's a slew of different positions)- there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of scientists/engineers/people with very technical backgrounds that skeptical. Many of such AGW skeptics are among the most prominent and respected physicists, chemists, geologists, meteorologists, mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, etc. in their respective fields. Saying "there is no controversy in the scientific community concerning AGW" is akin to Ahmadinejad saying "there are no homosexuals in Iran.' If you want to bury your heads in the sand and say "there is no controversy" or "dumb Republicans don't believe in AGW, then AGW must be true," go ahead, but you're seriously limiting your potential technical education (which I'm assuming, not trying to be overly condescending, many in this thread do not have much of one).
I've, in previous threads, thoroughly explained how ice core data and even current temperature measuremetns have high degrees of error, which exceed the "predicted values" of "global future temperatures."
It's weird, I don't see climatologist in there.
Here's a list of hundreds of scientists who doubt evolution. CONTROVERSY!
Which amount to 3% of scientists.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/...ng-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD
Again if 97% of scientists said that smoking gave you cancer, would you be like "But there's tons of them that don't believe that!!!"
edit: and before you come back with "Once only 3% believed the earth revolved around the sun." This isn't necessarily a fair equivalency. Even if the 97% are wrong, I'm pretty sure we'd be better off finding cleaner sources of energy. Again like smoking.
what a con
Hold on a second. By thoroughly explained you mean repeated the same vague objection continuously, without even coming close to meeting your burden of proof regarding any of it. You just assume the data is always too inaccurate, assume it cannot ever be used to demonstrate temperature variation on the levels the whole community of climatologists use it for and assume that everyone doing this stuff is either stupid or incredibly deceptive. These are just things you assert. Make no mistake about it, the burden of demonstrating the severity or even existence of this "issue" rests entirely on you.
Something Wicked
Member
And when I asked you explain such processes- before I had to explain them, you gave some half-assed comments with the technical rigor of a high school climate science education. I've asked to you cite specific scientific papers to refute the papers I gave, and you simply linked a blog for some hippy environmentalist. You seem to always attack people with lame one-liners, yet show very little technical prowess yourself.
Continually saying shit along the lines "people who believe X are dumb" and "no, you're an idiot who doesn't understand science" just proves to me you don't know what you're talking about and thus attack people as your only defensive measure left.
Seriously, dude, you're going to have a tough time in the real world when your bosses ask to actually explain your technical analysis in full detail, instead of using talking points from environmental blogs.
said the dude that thinks 97% of scientists are dumb
I seem to be having a pretty good time in the real world, actually. Perhaps it's due to my ability to not start off by dismissing everything those around me, above me and outside my expertise have concluded as the result of years of work. Maybe by not insisting all of them are really just too stupid to do math I've managed to stick around and make worthwhile contributions to this world.
Also, as an engineer, I am utterly qualified to assure everyone here that AGW is awesome and definitely happening. If there was a petition I could sign so you would recognize my authority I could surely save us both some time.
ragemasher13
Banned
I know I'm flirting with a ban by pointing out when a mod is wrong, but even still, educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric–scientists
Something Wicked
Member
Your linked CNN article said:
I didn't realize 3,200 in the US spoke for most of the tens of millions around the world who are actively involved in scientific research.
Also, 97% of climatologists believe in AGW- climatology is essentially built upon AGW. Much of that whole branch of "science" is on quite shaky grounds. Many refer climatology as a "pseudo-science", though personally, I think that's still unfair, as there are a few very intelligent climatologists- most of whom are far less adamant on their peers' claims and even may be considered "skeptics" themselves. Back to that study, I'd like to know the exact percentages of the 3,200 that are climatologists and other types of scientists. Also, were engineers and other professions with scientific backgrounds polled as well? From the context of the article it doesn't seem so.
But nevertheless, it doesn't take much research to see the growing AGW skepticism trend among the most intelligent scientists/engineers in the world. Once the whole "green" gimmick fades, more people will begin to speak up as they won't fear for their jobs by not having to go against their companies' market strategies.
Since when does 'play a role' mean it's necessarily a significant factor worth dealing with? Due to a decrease in solar activity, temps have not risen at all the last decade, so whatever that 'role' is, is likely insignificant . Not that this is a debate worth having with zealots.
Vicetrailia
Banned
I can't help but notice that the title under your name reads "factually challenged".
AnathemicOne
Banned
I just wanna say that that list has Galileo Galilei in there... we know how much the Church 'loved' Galilei and his scientific discoveries >>
This analogy is really good considering Mother Brain herself really likes to deny scientific data:
http://i.imgur.com/hLrJB.png
So then. Let me get this right.
97% of scientists are wrong because Climatology is a "pseudo science" and the survey itself is suspect because they didn't ask engineers, computer scientists, stock brokers and prostitutes their opinion. Gotcha.
And yeah, "green" technolog LOLZ! I mean who would want to leverage renewable resources? I mean we're totally fine with our finite resources which might be out of our control. I mean that has NEVER bitten us in the butt.
First, it's absolutely fine to explain why a moderator is wrong. Don't worry about that.
I do agree that the present day Catholic Church seems less hostile to science than do fundamentalist protestants. However, I do think you're missing the distinction between Scientists who happen to be Catholic and people who made discoveries because they were Catholic. For example, Galileo was certainly not making his discoveries because he was Catholic; in fact, those discoveries got him arrested by the inquisition and relegated to house arrest for the duration of his life.
By contrast, Galileo did make his discoveries because he espoused the scientific method; the act of empirical observation, rigorous study, and consequent hypothesis. Science was the actual method used by Galileo to make his discoveries; if anything, his Catholicism hindered his progress, and he certainly did not use Biblical scripture to reach his conclusions.
Again, I just want to say that despite this argument, I do agree that Catholicism is less hostile to science than other sects of Christianity have recently been -- although I'm not sure I'd say they're consistently welcoming of scientific conclusions, either.
I can't help but notice you're ignoring the inconvenient fact I noted.
Inconvenient fact? It's neither. The two warmest years on record are 2005 and 2010.
ragemasher13
Banned
The reason Galileo was put under house arrest was not because the Church "disagreed" with his findings, but for another reason entirely that people always desperately try to ignore.
At the time Galileo was making his discoveries there was something else going on that some of you may recall, it was a historical event called the "Protestant Reformation" and during that time Protestants were going around and murdering people, burning down monasteries and churches, and killing clergy over disputes in the church. Galileo was challenging the church at the time when people were dying over this, and his publications would undoubtedly have resulted in more needless bloodshed. The church asked him to hold off on his publications for the sake of innocent lives and to stop further bloodshed, Galileo refused, so they put him under house arrest.
Secondly, Galileo was never in the Inquisition. He was in Italy. And speaking of the inquisition, it was an ENTIRELY independent action by Kind Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain that was not commissioned, condoned, nor sanctioned by the church in any way. It was done by the King and Queen of Spain as a way of seizing money from Jewish bankers under the guise of doing something for the church, even though the church had NOTHING to do with it at all.
Also, way to ignore the HUNDREDS of other names on that list and solely focus on Galileo.
Why not bring up Kepler? of Copernicus? Or Gregor Mendel? All of those men studied science and nature specifically to better understand the world God created, which they certainly would not have done had they not been Catholic. And you also completely ignore scientific research the church has DIRECTLY funded over the centuries.
I know its socially OK to hate the Catholic church, but at least attempt to stay away from blatant falsehoods.
At the time Galileo was making his discoveries there was something else going on that some of you may recall, it was a historical event called the "Protestant Reformation" and during that time Protestants were going around and murdering people, burning down monasteries and churches, and killing clergy over disputes in the church. Galileo was challenging the church at the time when people were dying over this, and his publications would undoubtedly have resulted in more needless bloodshed. The church asked him to hold off on his publications for the sake of innocent lives and to stop further bloodshed, Galileo refused, so they put him under house arrest.
Secondly, Galileo was never in the Inquisition. He was in Italy. And speaking of the inquisition, it was an ENTIRELY independent action by Kind Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain that was not commissioned, condoned, nor sanctioned by the church in any way. It was done by the King and Queen of Spain as a way of seizing money from Jewish bankers under the guise of doing something for the church, even though the church had NOTHING to do with it at all.
Also, way to ignore the HUNDREDS of other names on that list and solely focus on Galileo.
Why not bring up Kepler? of Copernicus? Or Gregor Mendel? All of those men studied science and nature specifically to better understand the world God created, which they certainly would not have done had they not been Catholic. And you also completely ignore scientific research the church has DIRECTLY funded over the centuries.
I know its socially OK to hate the Catholic church, but at least attempt to stay away from blatant falsehoods.
AnathemicOne
Banned
I was under the impression that Galileo was convicted and tried by the Roman Inquisition which is indeed a branch under the Catholic Church (a branch under a branch technically) and the Inquisition had a large presence in Italy.
ragemasher13
Banned
Oh, my mistake, I assumed when he said "Inquisition" he was talking about the Spanish Inquisition, which was entirely independent of the church.
And yeah, you're right, and Inquisition was just a trial, and that was when they put him under house arrest. But like I said, the reasoning was because he refused to compromise in the interest of saving lives, so they felt they had to shut him up, but knew his research was solid so they did NOT give him the death penalty, which they could have done at the time.
But why not talk about Gregor Mendel? The basis for modern genetics?
Or if we didn't want to talk about Science, we could talk about how the Catholic Church FUNDED the Renaissance in its entirety, which they don't get credit for.
And yeah, you're right, and Inquisition was just a trial, and that was when they put him under house arrest. But like I said, the reasoning was because he refused to compromise in the interest of saving lives, so they felt they had to shut him up, but knew his research was solid so they did NOT give him the death penalty, which they could have done at the time.
But why not talk about Gregor Mendel? The basis for modern genetics?
Or if we didn't want to talk about Science, we could talk about how the Catholic Church FUNDED the Renaissance in its entirety, which they don't get credit for.
I would like to see some support for the argument that any of Galileo's books would have lead to bloodshed, and not just because they were considered heretical.
Copernicus had to dance around the idea of heliocentrism to avoid upsetting the church, you imbecile.
Funded it and tried to stop its greatest thinkers at every opportunity.
AnathemicOne
Banned
I specifically picked out Galileo because listing him under the scientists that the Catholic Church supported is downright false.
And since I'm already nitpicking, let's refer to your Renaissance comment. The Catholic Church played a heavy role in funding it (via profits from Crusades and) but trade with east asia also had a part. Not to mention the term 'funding' is really weird as the Renaissance was a 'cultural movement' not some project the Catholic Church thought up one day.
empty vessel
Member
You're picking two data points out of ten.
What is the relevance of graphs from 2002 to 2012? I don't get it.
Discussion was about the last 10 years.
happyfunball
Member
Where did you get this absurd notion? You've now made several very significant factual or analytical errors in this thread (the Catholic church did not fund the Renaissance in its entirety; the Italian inquisition was indeed a Catholic institution; many of these Catholic scientists were clearly treated with hostility by the Church for their scientific findings). I'm not sure you have a strong grasp of Western history.
In this case, the primary sponsors of Renaissance science and art was the Medici family (although there were several). You could point out that the Medici family were Catholics, but of course virtually anyone born in Italy in the 15th century would be Catholic, so this isn't particularly relevant. The most prolific sponsors of the family were, Giovanni di Bicci, a banker, and Lorenzo the Magnificent, a Florentine political figure. Ferdinando II de Medici was the Duke of Tuscany, and it was his family who took in and sheltered Galileo after he was persecuted by the Catholic church.
In stark contrast to your suggestion, the bonfire of the vanities (now a phrase made famous by the more modern novel of the same name by Tom Wolff) was instigated by a Catholic friar; in this, great works of art and science of the time were burned for heresy. Far from "funding the entire Renaissance," the Catholic church actively stymied it on frequent occasion, and most of the funding came from outside sources.
You're picking two data points out of ten.
And you're picking random end points that fit your preconceptions. It's an old statistics game used to fool people who want to be fooled.
You said it hasn't warmed in the last 10 years. The warmest years on record being 2005 and 2010 proves that statement incorrect. Full stop. What you wanted to say was the average global temperature now and 10 years ago was similar. I don't even know if that's true taking all data sets into consideration, but it's a rather irrelevant piece of trivia. That you think it means something bad for global warming says a whole lot about your level of understanding.
What are you doing man? Look who you're arguing with!
I don't really understand all the details of global warming, but winters have been getting milder every year it seems.
When I was a kid, sometimes we got snow around the end of October, and winter could last deep into March (consistently having snow on the ground).
The past few years, snow doesn't start until December and seems to be gone by March and we rarely have snow on the ground for more than 1 day at a time before it's gone, and there are rarely big storms.
When I was a kid, sometimes we got snow around the end of October, and winter could last deep into March (consistently having snow on the ground).
The past few years, snow doesn't start until December and seems to be gone by March and we rarely have snow on the ground for more than 1 day at a time before it's gone, and there are rarely big storms.
Yeah I know. Call me an optimist! Lol
In regards to Kosmo's point, I'm consistently confused by these sorts of arguments.
Before even confronting the evidence he proposes on its own merits, I have to question the logic. The evidence he's providing (that is, that temperature hasn't increased for 10 years on average) is extremely straightforward even to climatological laymen like Kosmo and I.
While it's perfectly possible that the majority of climatologists are wrong, I think the likelihood that their error is something obvious and simple like this are almost absurdly small. There are hundreds if not thousands of independent climatologists in the IAC (InterAcademy Council), EASA (European Academy of Science and Arts), ICAETS (International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technology Sciences), etc.
What are the odds that these thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to the study of climate have overlooked something so obvious and simple, and that a few casual observers on an internet forum have identified their critical error? On the contrary, if Climatologists have made an error, it is likely obscure and opaque to virtually anyone but the most well versed, or else it would have already been found.
Before even confronting the evidence he proposes on its own merits, I have to question the logic. The evidence he's providing (that is, that temperature hasn't increased for 10 years on average) is extremely straightforward even to climatological laymen like Kosmo and I.
While it's perfectly possible that the majority of climatologists are wrong, I think the likelihood that their error is something obvious and simple like this are almost absurdly small. There are hundreds if not thousands of independent climatologists in the IAC (InterAcademy Council), EASA (European Academy of Science and Arts), ICAETS (International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technology Sciences), etc.
What are the odds that these thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to the study of climate have overlooked something so obvious and simple, and that a few casual observers on an internet forum have identified their critical error? On the contrary, if Climatologists have made an error, it is likely obscure and opaque to virtually anyone but the most well versed, or else it would have already been found.
Good point.
As for average temperature not increasing over the past 10 years, that's possible. However, the graphs show increasing volatility in temperature, and that's probably a bad thing for reasons I don't know right now.
I'd say the Catholic Church's attitude to science is similar to that of many non-scientific institutions: opportunistic -- at least as far as some of the more controversial statements go. If a particular scientific finding supports some Catholic tenet in even the most roundabout manner, it is trumpeted as validation of the belief, whereas, a scientific finding that debunks or refutes some tenet is regarded as 'limited' or 'human' or some other invalidating adjective.
- Status