The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: Epiphileon
About
User Name: Epiphileon
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation: School Bus Driver
Interests: Nature, function, utilization, and potential development of consciousness
Gender: Male
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Sunday, March 22, 2009
Last Visit: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 12:27:31 PM
Number of Posts: 4,050
[0.45% of all post / 1.17 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: What Exactly Is Common Sense? We All Think We Have It.
Posted: Sunday, September 16, 2018 5:18:33 PM
Sorry Hope, I don't mean to terminate the thread, and I promise to get around to reading the actual content. You may recall however that part of my major at university was in psychometrics, and the issue of common sense was something of a big deal and a conundrum at the same time. As you say everyone thinks they have it, but when you go looking for the common aspect of it, it disappears. Psychometric instructors in fact, use it to combat students getting "we can measure anything" syndrome by tasking them to come up with even a preliminary instrument that has a chance of resulting in any kind of cohesive, reliable and valid score across a population level sampling. Generations of aspiring psychometricians have tried and failed to come up with one, well at least through the '80s which was when I was current in the field.

I promise though I'll get back to the point of your OP as soon as I can.



Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Topic: What Exactly Is Common Sense? We All Think We Have It.
Posted: Sunday, September 16, 2018 2:01:57 PM
High HopeDancing,
Haven't had time to read your post yet; however, I must admit to being compelled to point out that as far as anyone has been able to determine, common sense does not exist. It is a folk tale.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Topic: Climate change; global warming
Posted: Sunday, September 16, 2018 7:28:58 AM
FounDit wrote:
Ultimately, Epiphileon presents what may be the best description of the thinking of those of you who are believers when he says, twice, "...if there is even the remotest chance that our contribution to the CO2 content of the atmosphere is causing warming, considering the consequences, we should be highly motivated to curb it."

Is this how we should make law — on the fear of "What If"? If we made all our laws and regulations this way, on the fear that something bad might happen, even the remotest chance it might, I doubt we would all be able to leave our caves, because we certainly wouldn't be allowed to build houses with all the things in it that can kill us.

You all may be willing to live you lives in the "Fear of What If", but I choose not to.


First of all FounDit you should know I am not "a believer" in anything. In any argument, I strive to evaluate the evidence and rational, then adopt the position that is best supported.

Second I would go back to my comparison to any other scientific conclusion like cigarette smoking raises the risk of lung cancer. Do we have absolute proof that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer? No, we do not. Are there cases of people smoking nearly their entire lifetimes and not contracting cancer? Yes, there are. Have we wisely enacted laws on the basis of the lung cancer/smoking correlation? Yes we have.

Third you quoted me out of context, the first phrase of that sentence is critical to my point, "We most certainly should be seeking to lessen the amount of pollution we dump into the atmosphere..."

Forth there is the question, what are the benefits of seeking alternative energy sources? There are a number of them; however, the most attractive to me is that it forces development of new technologies. There is also the fact that if we ever get over our current stupidity and get serious about the space program to the point of colonizing space, we will need highly efficient, non-fossil fueled energy.

Then we get back to my first point. I've been pretty busy lately and it has taken me a while to read some of the supporting information that has been provided. Like I said earlier, "I have yet to check out the links you (Ruth) provided and will certainly do so. I am not current on this debate..."
So I have now checked out the article at "The Union of Concerned Scientists" site, and it appears to me to have a considerable amount of well-supported evidence. It doesn't really matter what they call themselves it is a matter of evidence. I checked out many of the links in that article, links within those links, and conducted searches for relevant claims to obtain independent sources. The following quotes from the article seem to be well supported.

UCS Article wrote:
Detailed measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have been taken continuously since the late 1950s. The data show that CO2 levels have steadily increased every year. In 2017, they were 28 percent higher than in 1959, the year CO2 measurements began at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.

What's more, scientists have detailed records of past CO2 levels from ice core studies, which show that CO2 levels are higher today than at least any point in the last 800,000 years ago.


Quote:
Scientists can conclusively identify that human activity is responsible for the observed increase in CO2. How? The carbon dioxide emitted by burning coal, natural gas, and oil has a unique chemical “fingerprint" — and the additional CO2 in the atmosphere bears that signature


Can you provide any evidence that directly contradicts this point? Yes natural sources of CO2 are far greater than human-caused sources; however, according to the evidence in support of anthropogenic effect our contribution is sufficiently significant to disrupt the normal balance and cause warming. What is the direct evidential contradiction of this point?

So show me the evidence that I may be convinced to change my mind if that is what the evidence indicates needs to happen. Because that is how I operate, not on the basis of how I may feel about an issue, or on the basis of who may claim it is true but, what is the evidence and the rationale that leads to the interpretation of that evidence.

I haven't done an exhaustive amount of research on this issue, nothing like some of the other notions I've brought here for validity testing, so the score I give this on my personal conviction scale is still only about a 7 out of 10. This contrasts with other positions I've maintained here like freewill, and the notion of personal interactive deities, on those the score is far closer to 10, on the 10 point scale.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Topic: Climate change; global warming
Posted: Sunday, September 9, 2018 4:18:19 AM
FounDit wrote:
And yes, I want absolute proof before we run off half-cocked and make laws that affect all of us before we know what we’re doing.

You're going to have to back off of this one FounDit, that is a flat out impossibility.

I've given my intellectual assent to the hypothesis of both climate change, and the anthropogenic contribution to it. Why? Because it is the consensus of the scientific community, and I have seen no direct evidence to the contrary, nor valid rebuttal of the evidence in support of the hypothesis. I also give my intellectual assent to other scientific conclusions such as cigarette smoking significantly raises the risk of lung cancer.

I also do not see the sense in not making the changes to our behavior that the hypothesis suggests. We most certainly should be seeking to lessen the amount of pollution we dump into the atmosphere, and if there is even the remotest chance that our contribution to the CO2 content of the atmosphere is causing warming, considering the consequences, we should be highly motivated to curb it.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Topic: Grammarly Says I Don't Need a Comma
Posted: Sunday, September 9, 2018 3:53:06 AM
RuthP wrote:
I believe Grammarly is mistaking "Leon" for a signature. It is trying to make this into the closing of a letter.

LOL, you're probably right about that, good call.

RuthP wrote:
I will also note I've never found any grammar checker to be much help. Most of the suggestions are in error, and those that may be correct are usually better elucidated by searching the issue and reading at length.

Well of course Ruth, those who don't need much help, wouldn't find them much help.Dancing I'm running it on a test basis right now and may come to the same conclusion. I am finding it interesting though, I always wondered how such things might work. I have been rather surprised that the only thing it has picked on me about so far has been comma placement. Oh and now the occasional misspelling that is actually a word. It knew "thing" in the last sentence should not have been "think". That seems impressive to me.

I do ignore probably about half its recommendations, particularly after Romany's explanation above. For example, it wanted me to commatize one of my above sentences as "Well, of course, Ruth those..." that just seems awkward to me and not how I'd say it conversationally. Oh and of course it doesn't recognize flagrant poetic license, and is having a fit over "commatize".

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Topic: Grammarly Says I Don't Need a Comma
Posted: Saturday, September 8, 2018 6:39:03 AM
Thanks Rom, that clears it up for me. Here's another example from another post, and it is pointing out the same error here. I pretty sure that putting the comma after the person's name I am thanking is the place to put it and Grammarly's algorithms just don't take that into account.

Thanks very much Leon, that is very informative.

Grammarly's Error Card wrote:
much,
It appears that you are missing a punctuation mark after the interjection Thanks very much. Consider adding a comma.


Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Topic: What Did Edison and Contemporaries Do to Humankind?
Posted: Saturday, September 8, 2018 6:27:01 AM
Thanks very much Leon, that is very informative.




Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Topic: Grammarly Says I Don't Need a Comma
Posted: Saturday, September 8, 2018 4:13:21 AM
There are aspects of grammar that I have concerns about my proficiency with, so when I discovered that Grammarly had a free app, I eagerly installed it. I'm not so sure it is doing the best of jobs. For example, the following sentence seems to need another comma but, Grammarly removed it.

There have been exhaustive arguments on here to establish the actual authority of a scientific theory and that is a far easier task than explaining why any one statistical analysis is better than another, or why another may be a complete abuse of the metrics.

I had placed a comma after theory, Grammarly indicated I should remove it. How many commas should be in that sentence, and where should they be?

Thank you for your assistance.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Topic: Climate change; global warming
Posted: Friday, September 7, 2018 5:26:13 PM
Ruth wrote:
* You do not need to be able to do the statistics yourself; you do need to grasp what the researchers are doing and read results and conclusions


Hi Ruth, you've made some very good points; however, on this one, I have to disagree, in a way. I would assert that if you are going to argue against the statistics that support that climate change is both happening and has an anthropogenic component, then you have to have a good understanding of what qualifies as valid statistical analysis, and by what methods statistical validity and reliability are increased.

Two of the most abused terms and places where erroneous attacks are made on scientific knowledge are theory and statistics. "That's just a theory", or "Statistics can say anything the author wants them to". There have been exhaustive arguments on here to establish the actual authority of a scientific theory and that is a far easier task than explaining why any one statistical analysis is better than another, or why another may be a complete abuse of the metrics.

I have yet to check out the links you provided and will certainly do so. I am not current on this debate as I think it is pretty foolish. If there is even the remotest chance we are contributing to this phenomenon we ought to be doing the most we can to eliminate even the possibility.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Topic: When will Jesus come back ?
Posted: Friday, September 7, 2018 4:49:09 AM
will wrote:
Jesus Christ!


Where!?! Well, I guess that answers the OP's question hey?

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.