mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
When will Jesus come back ? Options
FounDit
Posted: Friday, August 24, 2018 12:07:26 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,647
Neurons: 74,672
will wrote:

Clear up your ignorance of how science works and I’ll happily discuss the science with you. Until then I’ll heed your advice about the pointlessness of arguing with creationists. Pray


So I'm the one who is ignorant of how science works? Okay. Let's begin with this: I wrote that "a current model isn't really proof of anything until we have all the necessary information." Note that word, "necessary". I did not say "total and complete information". I said all the "necessary" information.

That seems fairly self-explanatory to me. To put it more simply, no one can say they have proof of anything until they have all the necessary information to make a judgment, or decision. Science accumulates information, but it can never accumulate the totality of information, because knowledge is always growing and expanding. So when new information is gained, the ideas, or models, have to be changed. That is what I said. What part of that do you judge to be incorrect?

So, if you will, please explain how any scientist can say he has proof of something if he doesn't have all the necessary information to make that claim. This is for all of you who want to say the science is settled.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, August 24, 2018 3:21:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 10,049
Neurons: 57,307
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Well that's easy - we already have all the necessary information re climate change being anthropogenic. We don't have all, but we have all that is necessary.

Thar said something a long time ago about how scientists will never say anything is abolute and finite because that is how they work. However, since they never say anything is 100% that gives skeptics a chance to say "Aha, you are only 99% sure, and they walk away laughing. Wish I could remember exactly how he phrased it.

Skeptics have also been caught lying -

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/
will
Posted: Friday, August 24, 2018 4:45:28 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
FounDit wrote:
So I'm the one who is ignorant of how science works? Okay. Let's begin with this: I wrote that "a current model isn't really proof of anything until we have all the necessary information." Note that word, "necessary". I did not say "total and complete information". I said all the "necessary" information.

No... Still not getting it. d'oh!
I’ve explained this about 4 or 5 times; are you actually reading anything I write?
The later comment about “total and complete information” is the absurd logical extension of saying, for example, that Classical mechanics isn’t proof of anything because (as we now know) it doesn’t include ‘all the necessary information’.

FounDit wrote:
That seems fairly self-explanatory to me. To put it more simply, no one can say they have proof of anything until they have all the necessary information to make a judgment, or decision. Science accumulates information, but it can never accumulate the totality of information, because knowledge is always growing and expanding. So when new information is gained, the ideas, or models, have to be changed. That is what I said. What part of that do you judge to be incorrect?

Apart from the inaccurate use of scientific terminology, this is better.

So, now that you’ve stopped with the strawmen and tempered your argument, let’s go back to the source of this tedious diversion.

From page 2: Friday, August 17, 2018 10:49:05 AM

FounDit originally wrote:
That Universe is expanding. Logically, it must be expanding into "something" even if that is empty space, otherwise, it would come up against some kind of barrier; or, that space is filled with the same material that fills the space within our Universe — radiation, Dark Matter, etc.

To which I wrote:
Well that’s not how cosmologist and astrophysicists understand it. That’s not a model that results from physics or quantum mechanics. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but not all opinions are equal.

FounDit originally wrote:
If my Universe is all the stuff contained in the TFD definition, then there is an "outside" that it is expanding into. If, however, one includes the area into which the Universe is expanding and calls all of it the Universe, then nothing can be known about it except what we already can see and test.

To which I wrote:
Indeed. That is how science works, it deals with what we can see and test, to compile the most current and most accurate descriptions of reality. And science does not claim to have ‘knowledge’ of things for which there is no evidence – things we can’t see or test-- things like gods and rainbow coloured unicorns.



Your next post added to this section of dialogue the part in green:

Quote:
That Universe is expanding. Logically, it must be expanding into "something" even if that is empty space, otherwise, it would come up against some kind of barrier; or, that space is filled with the same material that fills the space within our Universe — radiation, Dark Matter, etc.

Quote:
Well that’s not how cosmologist and astrophysicists understand it. That’s not a model that results from physics or quantum mechanics. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but not all opinions are equal.

FounDit wrote:
Well, until cosmologists and astrophysicists explain it to me so I can understand it, or you do, I can only go with what seems logical to me. Besides that point, scientists are forever creating models to explain current understanding, but when new information is gained, the models have to be changed, so a current model isn't really proof of anything until we have all the necessary information.

You made absolutely no acknowledgement of my paragraph about how science works; you may conceivably have glossed over it because you simply agreed – as your latest tempered version now suggests – except for the fact of what followed.

You effectively dismissed the expertise of cosmologists and astrophysicists in favour of what ‘seems logical’ to you. And then added, as a ‘besides’, a description of ‘how science works’, using inaccurate scientific terminology, a sloppy description of the process and an impossible conclusion
This is the same argument you use to reject the scientific consensus on anthropic climate change; which I tested by mentioning climate models… and you had a meltdown. Shhh


The point of all this is, as your latest (still rather poor) description of ‘how science works’ explains, is that not all opinions are equal. You may prefer to use ‘what seems logical’ to you, whether that’s about the universe expanding into something, or what is causing the climate to change (or whatever it is you do, or don’t now believe), but your opinion – and mine – is not equal to the opinion of people who possess the best and most current understanding of the science involved.

And just because science is a work in progress and changes with new information, or has in areas been wrong in the past, or cannot state facts about the future, or fact about things for which there is no evidence, it does not mean anyone and everyone has the right to pick and choose what to believe as though all beliefs are equally valid.


.
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, August 25, 2018 11:10:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,647
Neurons: 74,672
will wrote:
FounDit wrote:
So I'm the one who is ignorant of how science works? Okay. Let's begin with this: I wrote that "a current model isn't really proof of anything until we have all the necessary information." Note that word, "necessary". I did not say "total and complete information". I said all the "necessary" information.

No... Still not getting it. d'oh!
I’ve explained this about 4 or 5 times; are you actually reading anything I write?
I do, but really, sometimes you confuse the issue rather than clarify it.

The later comment about “total and complete information” is the absurd logical extension of saying, for example, that Classical mechanics isn’t proof of anything because (as we now know) it doesn’t include ‘all the necessary information’.
Really? So we can prove something even when we don't have all the necessary information to do so? Can you provide some examples?

FounDit wrote:
That seems fairly self-explanatory to me. To put it more simply, no one can say they have proof of anything until they have all the necessary information to make a judgment, or decision. Science accumulates information, but it can never accumulate the totality of information, because knowledge is always growing and expanding. So when new information is gained, the ideas, or models, have to be changed. That is what I said. What part of that do you judge to be incorrect?

Apart from the inaccurate use of scientific terminology, this is better.

So, now that you’ve stopped with the strawmen and tempered your argument, let’s go back to the source of this tedious diversion.
Ah, so now you admit I didn't use a straw man argument, because I've said the same things all along, as you just acknowledged.

From page 2: Friday, August 17, 2018 10:49:05 AM

FounDit originally wrote:
That Universe is expanding. Logically, it must be expanding into "something" even if that is empty space, otherwise, it would come up against some kind of barrier; or, that space is filled with the same material that fills the space within our Universe — radiation, Dark Matter, etc.

To which I wrote:
Well that’s not how cosmologist and astrophysicists understand it. That’s not a model that results from physics or quantum mechanics. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but not all opinions are equal.

FounDit originally wrote:
If my Universe is all the stuff contained in the TFD definition, then there is an "outside" that it is expanding into. If, however, one includes the area into which the Universe is expanding and calls all of it the Universe, then nothing can be known about it except what we already can see and test.

To which I wrote:
Indeed. That is how science works, it deals with what we can see and test, to compile the most current and most accurate descriptions of reality. And science does not claim to have ‘knowledge’ of things for which there is no evidence – things we can’t see or test-- things like gods and rainbow coloured unicorns.



Your next post added to this section of dialogue the part in green:

Quote:
That Universe is expanding. Logically, it must be expanding into "something" even if that is empty space, otherwise, it would come up against some kind of barrier; or, that space is filled with the same material that fills the space within our Universe — radiation, Dark Matter, etc.

[quote]Well that’s not how cosmologist and astrophysicists understand it. That’s not a model that results from physics or quantum mechanics. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but not all opinions are equal.

FounDit wrote:
Well, until cosmologists and astrophysicists explain it to me so I can understand it, or you do, I can only go with what seems logical to me. Besides that point, scientists are forever creating models to explain current understanding, but when new information is gained, the models have to be changed, so a current model isn't really proof of anything until we have all the necessary information.

You made absolutely no acknowledgement of my paragraph about how science works;Well, pardon me. I didn't know that my acknowledgement was required. I guess I was foolish to assume that it was understood I agreed with you when I didn't contest your points. In fact, I later agreed with you again on the nature of the universe in this exchange:

Quote FounDit:
I don't say the things you list are what the universe is expanding into. I said this is what our universe consists of, and what it is expanding into may be nothing but emptiness, or perhaps that emptiness isn't really empty, but consists of stuff like Dark Matter or radiation. I don't know. I merely posit the possibility. But I do see our universe as expanding into "something", whatever that is, and cannot accept the idea that one cannot say that. It makes no sense to me.

will wrote:

When the universe is described as having a size, that is not because it has an observed physical limit in the sense of an edge, with stuff inside and stuff outside. For a start there is a physical maximum limit to what we can physically observe, due to the limited distance any ‘information’ can travel at maximum possible speed (speed of light) in a given time (age of universe). The observable universe is currently calculated at around 13.8 billion light-years in every direction. This would be the “everything material, tangible and empirically observable” in the definition of universe I referenced.

Okay. So if I understand you correctly, you are simply saying the size of the universe is really only what we can "see"; that we can "see" only 13.8 billion light-years in any direction, and have no idea what may be beyond that.

you may conceivably have glossed over it because you simply agreed – as your latest tempered version now suggests – except for the fact of what followed.

You effectively dismissed the expertise of cosmologists and astrophysicists in favour of what ‘seems logical’ to you. And then added, as a ‘besides’, a description of ‘how science works’, using inaccurate scientific terminology, a sloppy description of the process and an impossible conclusion
This is the same argument you use to reject the scientific consensus on anthropic climate change; which I tested by mentioning climate models… and you had a meltdown. Shhh

So if I don't use "proper scientific terminology", I can't have an opinion? And what to what "argument" do you refer about my opinion on Climate models? It looks to me like it is you having the meltdown. I also note that you have avoided answering my last questions to you on that subject.

The point of all this is, as your latest (still rather poor) description of ‘how science works’ explains, is that not all opinions are equal. What is it with you and "all opinions being equal"? No one is talking about that, but it is true that everyone has a right to an opinion; and opinions should be based on facts as one understands them. That is how I developed my opinions on Climate Change, by reading and listening to the facts and arguments over the last 40 years.You may prefer to use ‘what seems logical’ to you, whether that’s about the universe expanding into something, or what is causing the climate to change (or whatever it is you do, or don’t now believe), but your opinion – and mine – is not equal to the opinion of people who possess the best and most current understanding of the science involved.

So because you don't see your opinion as being equal to theirs, you simply believe whatever you are told? Well, I don't. In my opinion, if they, or you, want to convince me of Anthropogenic Climate Change, then a better job of relaying that information needs to be done. And I require facts that are straightforward, clear, and understandable. From all I've read and heard on the subject, the facts seem to be that the whole thing is based on political power and not on good science.

And just because science is a work in progress and changes with new information, or has in areas been wrong in the past, or cannot state facts about the future, or fact about things for which there is no evidence, it does not mean anyone and everyone has the right to pick and choose what to believe as though all beliefs are equally valid.
Well, in my opinion, that is a load of garbage. If we are going to implement government policies that affect all of our lives and those of our descendants, we'd better damn sure be right about what we doing. And if the science is seen to be wrong, manipulated, incorrect, or politically motivated, (and books have been written on those very things) then we shouldn't be implementing such policies until we can prove beyond any doubt exactly how it happens.
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, August 25, 2018 9:02:38 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 10,049
Neurons: 57,307
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
If just ignoring the devastating reality of climate change made it go away, then we would have solved it by now. Encouraging inventions to help mitigate it has shown promise where they have been implemented and levels were brought down. Not only were economies not hindered, they were actually stimulated. There are millions of dollars to be made in green energy jobs and inventions, and they are now cheaper than burning coal. Trying to keep a dying industry going for a few thousand jobs where the people were offered retraining is a no win situation. American and Canadian lungs will pay for the recent rolling back of rules and regulations by this admin to satisfy economic greed by some groups. Also the rolling back of rules and funding to keep the Great Lakes clean will eventually cause problems for cities along the border that draw water from them. Rolling back everything Obama did out of jealousy and grudges is not going to help the American people.

The facts about anthropogenicity written by those experts in the field are there for anyone who wishes to see them. Of course one has to be versed enough to understand all the science, because scientists don't write for laypeople.

Often books and articles are written taking part of the available info and twisting and spinning it to fit the point they wish to make about it being a hoax. Some have even outright lied about how many scientific papers against it have been written and that info has been passed on. Often the writers of these opinions have not spent a dozen years in post-doctoral studies specific to climate change as those who are for anthropogenic change have and who have worked in the field for years. What is important is the latest info we have, not that from forty years ago. Just because they didn't have enough info in the past doesn't automatically mean they don't have enough info now.

And yes, I agree, climate change in the US is very political and partisan, just like every other topic. And the anti opinion is often manipulated by business interests such as oil, although even Exxon is now on the side of humans doing what they can for mitigation where possible.

::::

Just curious, FounDit, so answer or not.

How much travelling out of the US have you done? I was watching a Rick Steve's program today and thought of you as an American. (Our travelling is pretty much limited to travel shows these days except for a couple of weeks away in the winter 😕.) He was addressing an American audience and mentioned that 56% of Americans never get past Orlando to travel to meet the other 96% of the world - assume he meant population. He was encouraging them to go. He especially liked Europe so said go there first and then expand. I've never been to Europe and am not getting there now. But I do enjoy watching and learning about the different cultures. That was why he was encouraging them to go. I just wondered if you'd ever been to Europe and what you thought of such cultures that are thousands of years old when our countries are so young in comparison.
will
Posted: Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:26:33 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
I wrote:
I’ve explained this about 4 or 5 times; are you actually reading anything I write?

FounDit wrote:
I do, but really, sometimes you confuse the issue rather than clarify it.

As many before me have discovered, discussions with creationists and climate change deniers generally descends into a confusing and frustrating process of battling logical fallacies and chasing moving goalposts. For example look at how much time and effort went into clearing up your strawman that attempted to claim I believed science doesn't use models… but together we pushed through that unnecessary confusion and put that nonsense behind us. Applause

FounDit wrote:
Really? So we can prove something even when we don't have all the necessary information to do so? Can you provide some examples?

Yeah, sure: pretty much every aspect of your daily life that involves applied science in some form – which is pretty much every aspect of your daily life.

All applied science likely has some ‘information’ missing, to varying degree, not least because science is never considered ‘complete’.

All around us we have incontrovertible proof that life ‘began’ on Earth, yet we don’t have ‘all the necessary information’ about how that life began.

Bridges, planes and buildings are designed and built on rigorous proof that they will defy gravity, yet we don’t have ‘all the necessary information’ about what gravity even ‘is’.

We have observable proof of the matter that makes up 15% of the universe; through deductive reasoning we have proof that some ‘other’ matter makes up 85% of the universe, yet we don’t have ‘all the necessary information’ about what that matter is.

Your continual insistence on using terms like ‘proof’, ‘prove something’ and ‘all necessary information’ bears no resemblance to how science works. I’ve tried to accommodate you where I can, as in the examples above, but the problem here is that your understanding of science is so inaccurate (and your argument so inane) that we may as well be talking about different things.

No doubt you’ll now use your sloppy definitions to move the goalposts, to claim that these everyday examples – where science doesn’t rub up against particular ideologies – are somehow different to the scientific consensus on climate change. It is not different, it’s subject to exactly the same methodology and application.

FounDit wrote:
Ah, so now you admit I didn't use a straw man argument, because I've said the same things all along, as you just acknowledged.

And there was me thinking that we had pushed through this nonsense. This is just plain infantile – regardless of whether or not you later chose to play your utterly banal ‘it was a joke’ card.

FounDit wrote:
Well, pardon me. I didn't know that my acknowledgement was required. I guess I was foolish to assume that it was understood I agreed with you when I didn't contest your points.


Ah, so now you admit you are ignorant of how science works, because I've said the same things all along, as you just acknowledged.

See what I did there? Think

Your acknowledgement was not required. The point was that you dismissed the expertise of cosmologists and astrophysicists in favour of what ‘seems logical’ to you. And then added, as a ‘besides’, your own description of ‘how science works’, using inaccurate scientific terminology, a sloppy description of the process and an impossible conclusion – which contradicted what I had just described (and that went unacknowledged)

FounDit wrote:
So if I don't use "proper scientific terminology", I can't have an opinion?

I’ve already stated several times that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, at least as many times as I’ve stated that not all opinions are equal. Of course you are entitled to an opinion; how could anyone deny you your own opinion?
However, if you can’t even use scientific terminology correctly, it’s fair to assume your opinion is not particularly scientific – or at least, where it differs, not as scientifically valid as those that do possess the appropriate scientific expertise.

If an oncologist told you, in his opinion, that you had cancer, you would not consider your opinion (perhaps based on what ‘seems logical’) to be equally valid – especially if you couldn’t even be bothered to correctly differentiate between, for example, scientific terms like prognosis and model. And I doubt you would refuse treatment because, besides that point, oncologists are forever creating models to explain current understanding, but when new information is gained, the models have to be changed, so a current model isn't really proof of anything until we have all the necessary information.

FounDit wrote:
And what to what "argument" do you refer about my opinion on Climate models?

The same argument – dismiss the expertise of scientists in favour of what ‘seems logical’ to you. And then, besides that point, add that ‘scientists are forever creating models to explain current understanding, but when new information is gained, the models have to be changed, so a current model isn't really proof of anything until we have all the necessary information’.

Your fixation on models appears to stem from your false belief that climate science is based solely on predictive models about how the climate will be in the future. You have been corrected on this enough times, to no avail, that there is little point repeating; suffice to say, the models used in this context are the same as those used in fields as diverse as economics and vaccination programs. To wait for an epidemic or economic crash to occur, before we conclude we have ‘all the necessary information’ to trust the models would be just plain stupid.

FounDit wrote:
It looks to me like it is you having the meltdown. I also note that you have avoided answering my last questions to you on that subject.

Clear up your ignorance of how science works and I’ll happily discuss the science with you. Until then I’ll heed your advice about the pointlessness of arguing with creationists.

FounDit wrote:
What is it with you and "all opinions being equal"? No one is talking about that, but it is true that everyone has a right to an opinion; and opinions should be based on facts as one understands them.

Emphasis added.
Opinions should be based on the facts that most accurately reflect reality. Of course this isn’t always practically possible, which is why we rely on the scientific method and expert opinion in every aspect of our daily life. This is why expert opinion has more value than non-expert opinion. We don’t rely on biologists, aircraft designers, cosmologists and oncologists because they have an opinion based on some subjective, notional understanding of the facts; we rely on biologists, aircraft designers, cosmologists and oncologists because scientific methodology has established that their opinions accurately and empirically reflect our observations of reality.

FounDit wrote:
That is how I developed my opinions on Climate Change, by reading and listening to the facts and arguments over the last 40 years.

And you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. But not all opinions are equal.

FounDit wrote:
So because you don't see your opinion as being equal to theirs, you simply believe whatever you are told?

Whether I believe what I’m told is irrelevant. Refusing to believe an oncologist makes no difference to the fact of whether I have cancer or not. I could seek a second opinion, or a third, or forth… I could refuse to believe 99% of all oncologists on the planet and every single scientific body of national and international standing, but at some point it is clearly irrational for me to continue to believe that ‘what seems logical’ to me is an equally valid opinion.

FounDit wrote:
Well, I don't. In my opinion, if they, or you, want to convince me of Anthropogenic Climate Change, then a better job of relaying that information needs to be done.

Over the course of the last century ‘they’ – whoever this shadowy ‘they’ might be – have convinced, and continue to convince, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, every single scientific body of national and international standing, every multinational corporation (including ExxonMobil) and every government on the planet… I think ‘they’ are probably safe to enact whatever scheme ‘they’ have planned without bothering to convince you as well. Shhh

FounDit wrote:
And I require facts that are straightforward, clear, and understandable. From all I've read and heard on the subject, the facts seem to be that the whole thing is based on political power and not on good science.

The burden is not on science to prove or disprove extraordinary claims. If you want to disprove the scientific consensus and change the politics of every government on the planet, the onus is very much on you. Of course there has been some recent ‘success’ in changing the political agreement on climate change in the USA, but this is not at all due to a valid argument against the science.

This change has come about because – in a country where a quarter of the voting population believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, and a greater percentage believe evolutionary theory is an atheist lie, or believe the Earth is 6 thousand years old (including the Vice President), and where presidential candidates are prepared to spout pseudo-science about vaccination programmes – it is possible to exploit ignorance, fear and partisanship for political gain.

FounDit wrote:
Well, in my opinion, that is a load of garbage. If we are going to implement government policies that affect all of our lives and those of our descendants, we'd better damn sure be right about what we doing. And if the science is seen to be wrong, manipulated, incorrect, or politically motivated, (and books have been written on those very things) then we shouldn't be implementing such policies until we can prove beyond any doubt exactly how it happens.

You are welcome to your opinion… but some opinions are bullshit. Whistle


.
will
Posted: Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:33:46 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
Hope123 wrote:
How much travelling out of the US have you done?

I know this wasn't directed at me, and my experience is anecdotal and is unlikely a broad cross section of Americans (probably the liberal elite), but we have meetings with scientists and representatives from American companies that often start with embarrassed apologies (for the state of US politics) and, in at least one case, confirmation that science is 'still top priority'... whatever the heck that was supposed mean Eh?

.
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, August 26, 2018 1:51:54 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,647
Neurons: 74,672
will wrote:
I wrote:
I’ve explained this about 4 or 5 times; are you actually reading anything I write?

FounDit wrote:
I do, but really, sometimes you confuse the issue rather than clarify it.

As many before me have discovered, discussions with creationists and climate change deniers generally descends into a confusing and frustrating process of battling logical fallacies and chasing moving goalposts. For example look at how much time and effort went into clearing up your strawman that attempted to claim I believed science doesn't use models… but together we pushed through that unnecessary confusion and put that nonsense behind us. Applause

FounDit wrote:
Really? So we can prove something even when we don't have all the necessary information to do so? Can you provide some examples?

Yeah, sure: pretty much every aspect of your daily life that involves applied science in some form – which is pretty much every aspect of your daily life.

All applied science likely has some ‘information’ missing, to varying degree, not least because science is never considered ‘complete’.

All around us we have incontrovertible proof that life ‘began’ on Earth, yet we don’t have ‘all the necessary information’ about how that life began.
An illogical comparison. The "proof" of life is obvious and empirical. The "how" is unrelated to the existence. With Anthropogenic Climate Change, there is no "proof". Climate change is still being debated among scientists, along with all the factors that can be known at the present time. But the debate goes on. You make the assumption it is settled, and it is not.

Bridges, planes and buildings are designed and built on rigorous proof that they will defy gravity, yet we don’t have ‘all the necessary information’ about what gravity even ‘is’.
Another illogical comparison. Knowing how to make planes fly does not require ‘all the necessary information’ about gravity; just knowledge about design, aerodynamics, power, and manufacturing, etc.

We have observable proof of the matter that makes up 15% of the universe; through deductive reasoning we have proof that some ‘other’ matter makes up 85% of the universe, yet we don’t have ‘all the necessary information’ about what that matter is.
Yet another illogical conclusion. Proof of one thing does not equal proof of another, and so we cannot say anything about the "other". One needs evidence. C'mon, will, you're not even trying.

Your continual insistence on using terms like ‘proof’, ‘prove something’ and ‘all necessary information’ bears no resemblance to how science works. I’ve tried to accommodate you where I can, as in the examples above, but the problem here is that your understanding of science is so inaccurate (and your argument so inane) that we may as well be talking about different things.
The same might be said of you with the inane examples you have provided above. I expected better.

No doubt you’ll now use your sloppy definitions to move the goalposts, to claim that these everyday examples – where science doesn’t rub up against particular ideologies – are somehow different to the scientific consensus on climate change. It is not different, it’s subject to exactly the same methodology and application.
Your comparisons are completely different and it's just plain lazy thinking to use such in relation to Anthropogenic Climate Change.

FounDit wrote:
Ah, so now you admit I didn't use a straw man argument, because I've said the same things all along, as you just acknowledged.

And there was me thinking that we had pushed through this nonsense. This is just plain infantile – regardless of whether or not you later chose to play your utterly banal ‘it was a joke’ card.
Well, like I said, I didn't take into account that most of you on the political Left have no sense of humor.

FounDit wrote:
Well, pardon me. I didn't know that my acknowledgement was required. I guess I was foolish to assume that it was understood I agreed with you when I didn't contest your points.


Ah, so now you admit you are ignorant of how science works, because I've said the same things all along, as you just acknowledged.
No, I admitted no such thing. I admitted, and agreed with you, that 13.8 billion light years is as far as we can see.

See what I did there? Think
Yes, I did. You completely changed what I wrote to say something I didn't intend or mean. It demeans your arguments and reveals you to be either disingenuous or hypocritical.

Your acknowledgement was not required. So I can't even get credit when I agree with you, eh? Not too surprising, I guess.
The point was that you dismissed the expertise of cosmologists and astrophysicists in favour of what ‘seems logical’ to you. And then added, as a ‘besides’, your own description of ‘how science works’, using inaccurate scientific terminology, a sloppy description of the process and an impossible conclusion – which contradicted what I had just described (and that went unacknowledged)
Now you're just lying. I never said this was exclusively "how science works". I said that science uses models, and those models change with new information, which is a true statement. You slyly manipulate words to demean me with descriptions such as "inane, sloppy, inaccurate, and impossible", but none of that changes the facts of what I wrote.

FounDit wrote:
So if I don't use "proper scientific terminology", I can't have an opinion?

I’ve already stated several times that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, at least as many times as I’ve stated that not all opinions are equal. Of course you are entitled to an opinion; how could anyone deny you your own opinion?
However, if you can’t even use scientific terminology correctly, it’s fair to assume your opinion is not particularly scientific – or at least, where it differs, not as scientifically valid as those that do possess the appropriate scientific expertise.
My opinion doesn't need to be "scientific" to be valid, and until there is absolute proof presented to the general public, and particularly to me, my opinion is just as valid as that of anyone else on the topic, especially when I have examined the evidence presented so far. If my opinion differs, then it is they who have failed to present convincing evidence.

If an oncologist told you, in his opinion, that you had cancer, you would not consider your opinion (perhaps based on what ‘seems logical’) to be equally valid – especially if you couldn’t even be bothered to correctly differentiate between, for example, scientific terms like prognosis and model. And I doubt you would refuse treatment because, besides that point, oncologists are forever creating models to explain current understanding, but when new information is gained, the models have to be changed, so a current model isn't really proof of anything until we have all the necessary information.
And yet another illogical comparison. The evidence and proof of cancer has been with us for a great number of years. The evidence and proof of Anthropogenic Climate Change has not been demonstrated, merely proposed, or suggested as a hypothesis, and accepted by those who have not applied any critical thinking to the subject, or who have not read the counter-arguments and given that equal consideration.

FounDit wrote:
And what to what "argument" do you refer about my opinion on Climate models?

The same argument – dismiss the expertise of scientists in favour of what ‘seems logical’ to you. And then, besides that point, add that ‘scientists are forever creating models to explain current understanding, but when new information is gained, the models have to be changed, so a current model isn't really proof of anything until we have all the necessary information’.
And once again, you mischaracterize my words. I don't dismiss the expertise of scientists in favor of what seems logical to me. I just ask for proof if they want me to support them in that position, which they cannot do. As to the latter part of what I wrote, I provided links that prove what I said was true. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with them, for I was accurate.

Your fixation on models appears to stem from your false belief that climate science is based solely on predictive models about how the climate will be in the future. You have been corrected on this enough times, to no avail, that there is little point repeating; suffice to say, the models used in this context are the same as those used in fields as diverse as economics and vaccination programs. To wait for an epidemic or economic crash to occur, before we conclude we have ‘all the necessary information’ to trust the models would be just plain stupid.
Another stupid comparison. Economics and vaccinations are completely unrelated to the subject of Climate change because we have proof of the former, and none of the latter. Besides that point, climate scientists themselves speak of using models. Another point is that we have seen evidence of economic crashes and epidemics, but we have NEVER seen humans demonstrate the ability to change the climate, and you have presented no proof that it is even possible.

FounDit wrote:
It looks to me like it is you having the meltdown. I also note that you have avoided answering my last questions to you on that subject.

Clear up your ignorance of how science works and I’ll happily discuss the science with you. Until then I’ll heed your advice about the pointlessness of arguing with creationists.
And who appointed you as arbiter of my knowledge of how science works? What hubris to think I can't read what scientists say and write and form an opinion on it. Your arrogance is breathtaking.

FounDit wrote:
What is it with you and "all opinions being equal"? No one is talking about that, but it is true that everyone has a right to an opinion; and opinions should be based on facts as one understands them.

Emphasis added.
Opinions should be based on the facts that most accurately reflect reality. Of course this isn’t always practically possible, which is why we rely on the scientific method and expert opinion in every aspect of our daily life. This is why expert opinion has more value than non-expert opinion. We don’t rely on biologists, aircraft designers, cosmologists and oncologists because they have an opinion based on some subjective, notional understanding of the facts; we rely on biologists, aircraft designers, cosmologists and oncologists because scientific methodology has established that their opinions accurately and empirically reflect our observations of reality.
And each of those can empirically or factually prove what they say. Anthropogenic Climate Change has not been proven. Period. Full stop. But I'm willing to change my mind. Simply provide the evidence that proves it.

FounDit wrote:
That is how I developed my opinions on Climate Change, by reading and listening to the facts and arguments over the last 40 years.

And you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. But not all opinions are equal.
And they aren't required to be.

FounDit wrote:
So because you don't see your opinion as being equal to theirs, you simply believe whatever you are told?

Whether I believe what I’m told is irrelevant. Refusing to believe an oncologist makes no difference to the fact of whether I have cancer or not. I could seek a second opinion, or a third, or forth… I could refuse to believe 99% of all oncologists on the planet and every single scientific body of national and international standing, but at some point it is clearly irrational for me to continue to believe that ‘what seems logical’ to me is an equally valid opinion.
Back to oncology again, eh? Ridiculous comparison.

FounDit wrote:
Well, I don't. In my opinion, if they, or you, want to convince me of Anthropogenic Climate Change, then a better job of relaying that information needs to be done.

Over the course of the last century ‘they’ – whoever this shadowy ‘they’ might be – have convinced, and continue to convince, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, every single scientific body of national and international standing, every multinational corporation (including ExxonMobil) and every government on the planet… I think ‘they’ are probably safe to enact whatever scheme ‘they’ have planned without bothering to convince you as well. Shhh
Wrong, again. There are any number of scientists who disagree with Anthropogenic Climate Change. As I said, whole books have been written on the subject over the years. It is also a fact that many corporations and scientific bodies rely on government funding, so it wouldn't be a surprise to find they go along with the beliefs of those in current political power to keep their funding. This is so obviously true, it is almost a maxim.

FounDit wrote:
And I require facts that are straightforward, clear, and understandable. From all I've read and heard on the subject, the facts seem to be that the whole thing is based on political power and not on good science.

The burden is not on science to prove or disprove extraordinary claims. It is when they make extraordinary claims.

If you want to disprove the scientific consensus and change the politics of every government on the planet, the onus is very much on you. Wrong, again. If the government wants my support in crafting policies for the country or the planet, then scientists need to prove what they are saying in advising such policies.

Of course there has been some recent ‘success’ in changing the political agreement on climate change in the USA, but this is not at all due to a valid argument against the science.
And what would that be?

This change has come about because – in a country where a quarter of the voting population believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, and a greater percentage believe evolutionary theory is an atheist lie, or believe the Earth is 6 thousand years old (including the Vice President), and where presidential candidates are prepared to spout pseudo-science about vaccination programmes – it is possible to exploit ignorance, fear and partisanship for political gain.
Ah, I see. The change in political agreement is a result of that quarter of the population whom you judge to be ignorant, fearful, and partisan in their politics. All the "intelligent" people agree with it, right? No judgment or hubris there, huh?

FounDit wrote:
Well, in my opinion, that is a load of garbage. If we are going to implement government policies that affect all of our lives and those of our descendants, we'd better damn sure be right about what we doing. And if the science is seen to be wrong, manipulated, incorrect, or politically motivated, (and books have been written on those very things) then we shouldn't be implementing such policies until we can prove beyond any doubt exactly how it happens.

You are welcome to your opinion… but some opinions are bullshit. Whistle
And in my opinion, so is most of what you have written here.

Hope123
Posted: Sunday, August 26, 2018 3:47:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 10,049
Neurons: 57,307
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote: Climate change is still being debated among scientists, along with all the factors that can be known at the present time. But the debate goes on. You make the assumption it is settled, and it is not.

Proof needed for this assertion you keep making. And only climate researchers are to be included - not some weatherman on Fox News or some farmer who has "an interest in the weather and climate" - just like ye olde "Farmers' Almanac".

I'd like to see some peer reviewed papers by scientific climate researchers with all this data you insist is there against the changes already happening being Anthropogenic. The only people who think it is not settled are those who believe the political and economical hype and use partial info to deny the A change.

I assume you'd rather have a pissing contest with Will than respond to some real questions about the science or about the economics of countries and US States where mitigation is happening and proving to be helpful and economically viable.

Since I don't expect any answers the readers will make their own conclusions as to who has science based info and who can't prove his assertions beyond opinion of 40 years of reading. Reading who knows what.
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, August 26, 2018 4:06:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 10,049
Neurons: 57,307
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote: My opinion doesn't need to be "scientific" to be valid, (Huh? We are discussing science! So you've reviewed every abstract written about it? No? A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!) and until there is absolute proof presented to the general public, and particularly to me, my opinion is just as valid as that of anyone else on the topic, especially when I have examined the evidence presented so far. If my opinion differs, then it is they who have failed to present convincing evidence.

Back to absolute proof again! lol

Your opinion is as good as anyone else on the topic? Like researchers who have spent a dozen years in post-doctoral studies specific to climate change and many years working in the field?

Huh? Wow. What arrogance. What hubris! If we can't convince you with the arguments of climate researchers, our and their argument fails. That says nothing about your abilty to be able to be flexible or even understand the arguments.
leonAzul
Posted: Sunday, August 26, 2018 5:55:23 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,166
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Absinthius wrote:
leonAzul wrote:


Either Jesus came and went, or Matthew is a lying sack of shit.

That is a logical fallacy, a false dilemma.

A third option is much more likely: The book is made up, making both other options equally irrelevant.


Thank you for addressing the Original Post (OP) as it is, and thank you for your forbearance regarding my rude language, which only expressed my frustration over the way this conversation has spiraled out of control.

To my mind, the OP raises a very interesting question concerning the value of sacred texts that has little to do with epistemology, except in the practical sense of critical thinking, and even less to do with global climate change.
Shhh
The original question could have been an opportunity to examine just what is meant by the word "testament". While it could be well accepted that a testament is heart-felt and sincere, there is nothing about the word that makes such a testament literally factual without corroborating evidence. There is no doubt that this testament has been influential, yet the very fact that someone would ask such a question about the Second Coming™ as a literal event reveals a great deal.
Think
will
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2018 5:14:20 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
Point taken, leonAzul. And apologies for the spiralling.

After months of not visiting the site, or dipping in and finding nothing of personal interest, my attention was pricked by Epiphileon’s comments on evolutionary stable strategies and the dangers of large numbers in a population choosing subjective ‘truths’ rather than more accurate explanations – apologies if I’ve misrepresented you, Epiphileon.

There were points when I thought the science would be of interest in a more suitable location… but, as we discovered, we never really strayed too far from philosophy.

Would it help if we all chose to believe that I am the second coming and, now that David Blaine has cornered the market on flashy miracles, I’ve had to adopt more pedantic and tedious methods to save humanity from itself? Whistle


.
Absinthius
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2018 5:28:05 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 382
Neurons: 26,708
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
will wrote:
Would it help if we all chose to believe that I am the second coming and, now that David Blaine has cornered the market on flashy miracles, I’ve had to adopt more pedantic and tedious methods to save humanity from itself? Whistle


This has been my understanding all along!
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2018 5:34:34 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 5,309
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Yeah... Thank you, Leon.

One line of this discussion that stemmed from assertions by some that there can be no place for god(s), because they know physical universe is all that exists, and if God created it than who created God, etc... has come to a stalemate anyway. At least for now.

I've understood the reason is unsatisfactory mathematical education.

Will wanted me to offer something new, but there's nothing I can do at this point other than to pray:

Pray
Forgive the lost as they fell victims of deceit.
Do not forgive those who consciously sow ignorance and turmoil in Thy world, as that kin's intent is to spoil and corrupt the world Thou created, and to steal it from Thee.

(Is this linguistically correct? It's been a long shot).

I said I never prayed for personal fovours, and I really don't, but for this I will pray.


On the other issue of climate change, the only point that seem to not having been raised (unless I overlooked it) is that even if there is a climate change ongoing, why is it necessarily bad? For example, for my country (Russia) gradual climate warming is a positive thing. At the moment we've got much of Siberia covered with permafrost. If that glacier gradually withdraws this will open up new territories and resources for development. And other regions, too, will become more suitable for agriculture and other types of farming. So I'd rather take it easy and adjust in the meantime. Even if there's warming, it's slow, so we do have time to adjust.

By the way, we already see positive economic effects, e.g. from improving accessibility of nothern territories; and a project for developing transport infrastructure along the coast of the Arctic Ocean is underway.


Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2018 6:07:14 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,213
Neurons: 740,989
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
One line of this discussion that stemmed from assertions by some that there can be no place for god(s), because they know physical universe is all that exists, and if God created it than who created God, etc... has come to a stalemate anyway. At least for now.


That's interesting, that's not how I interpreted the discussion so far. To me it looked like people pointing out that debating god in terms of science is quite pointless as there is no evidence in favour of god existing, nor proof that he doesn't exist. So you're right that there is no place, but it'd be good to clarify where there is no place, instead of a blanket statement.

Additionally, science is not about knowing for sure that the physical universe is all that exists. Science is about focusing on what we can test and trying to expand our understanding of the world/universe.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
On the other issue of climate change, the only point that seem to not having been raised (unless I overlooked it) is that even if there is a climate change ongoing, why is it necessarily bad? For example, for my country (Russia) gradual climate warming is a positive thing.


Bad effects of climate change include:
- Thawing of the permafrost and release of old diseases and viruses locked in there.
- Longer lasting and more intense heat waves and droughts, leading to starvation, loss of crops, uncontrollable forest fires.
- Increased global costs as countries need to re-work how they currently deal with agriculture
- Increased global costs as countries need to deal with increased flooding and forest fires
- Increased migration from those countries most affected by heatwaves, floods, fires, famine etc.
- Stronger and more intense hurricanes
- Rising sea levels due to a combination of melting ice and the expansion of sea water as it warms
- ...

So there might be some new opportunities provided by climate change, but I'm not sure they'll soften the blow of the ones I've listed above.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2018 7:50:43 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 5,309
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Lotje1000 wrote:

Bad effects of climate change include:
- Thawing of the permafrost and release of old diseases and viruses locked in there.

(i) Is there any evidence of such ancient viruses having released / being even contained in the permafrost?

(ii) Are there any grounded reasons to believe that old deseases would potentially be more malicious than the modern ones? If ancient organisms could develop immunity against them, why would the modern ones fail to do so?

(iii) Overall, I am much more concerned about devastating effects from possible human crafted new viruses, and from other human-made malicious agents like synthetic drugs, for example, than I am about hypothetical "old deseases" that may or may not get released from permafrost.


- Longer lasting and more intense heat waves and droughts, leading to starvation, loss of crops, uncontrollable forest fires.

(i) Some parts of the planet suffer from heat, others suffer from cold. This is the case now, and this probably will be the case in the foreseeable future. What's important is that the overall (i.e. global) conditions for food production not degrade, and I'd guess they are actually likely to impove with warming (although I admit I lack thorough analysis on this). In specific areas adjustment / compensatory measures may be necessary. That's life, we all have to adjust to changes.

(ii) I hear even from media reports that many of the recent "uncontrollable fires" are likely to have resulted from arson. So what we really must do is strengthen law enforcement and forest management, rather than detract attention and resources to fighting losing battles with planet's climate and/or foundations of math.


- Increased global costs as countries need to re-work how they currently deal with agriculture
As climate warming opens more territories to agriculture and farming, global benefits from that will many-fold exceed any global costs associated with adjustment to this better environment.


- Increased global costs as countries need to deal with increased flooding and forest fires

(i) Regarding forest fires see above.
(ii) I don't know if there is any statistics that supports the link between increased flooding and (possible) climate change. Regardless of that there must be adequate hydro-technical infrastructure in place. As far as I know, most recent cases of floodings and sill flows in Russia were due largely to poor maintenance of infrastructure than to abnomally extreme weather conditions. I don't know if that's the case in other countries.


- Increased migration from those countries most affected by heatwaves, floods, fires, famine etc.
99+ percent of migration originates not from climate problems, but from human-made problems: from destabilized countries and whole regions, from wars, from erosion of education and culture, and subsequent moral and mental degradation and radicalization, - and from famine and economic destruction that result from those deliberately created "crises".

If we can reverse this trend, I am sure we can cope with any adjustments related to climate change that may occasionally become necessary.


- Stronger and more intense hurricanes
Hmm, maybe... Is there evidence of such effects?

- Rising sea levels due to a combination of melting ice and the expansion of sea water as it warms
During the 20th century the sea level increased 17 cm. People can easily make up for such slow increase, especially if they were not wasting so much time and resources on wars and other non-productive undertakings and paid more attention to improving planet's conditions and infrastructure instead. Even if we have to raise dams 0,5 m a century - this is quite affordable, compared to the need to re-build those dams altogether twice in the 20th century due to two world wars.

Epiphileon
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2018 7:54:26 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,342
Neurons: 167,374
LeonAzul wrote:
there is nothing about the word that makes such a testament literally factual without corroborating evidence.


Unless you are a believer, then the Bible is the Testaments of God, and has a higher veracity than mere facts.
Then of course we would have to acknowledge three types of facts;
1) Facts.
2) Divine facts.
3) Alternative facts.

The fact that two of these are illusory only matters to those who hold only to facts.

I wonder how Joe Friday would have dealt with this.
Absinthius
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2018 8:04:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 382
Neurons: 26,708
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
Those aren't really points that are still up for debate Kirill.

You can choose to deny them all you want, it doesn't change all that much about the facts. These predictions are extrapolations from currently seen phenomena and based on the best scientific models and knowledge that we have available to us, performed by the leading scientists in the field. Not to heed these warnings is foolish, no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

The sort of naive wishfull ignorace you seem to be hell-bent on defending is exactly why the human species (and the vast majority of other species that we haven't succesfully destroyed yet) will go extinct in the cosmic equivalent of the blink of an eye. We (as a species) are too stubborn and too set in our ways to deal with these challenges. If we are to have any chance in surviving our own sabotage of this planet, we can't be stuck in a mindset like that.

Very doom and gloom, I know. But sometimes reality sucks.
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2018 8:21:19 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,213
Neurons: 740,989
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
(i) Is there any evidence of such ancient viruses having released / being even contained in the permafrost?


Feel free to google for yourself, but yes:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170504-there-are-diseases-hidden-in-ice-and-they-are-waking-up

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
(ii) Are there any grounded reasons to believe that old deseases would potentially be more malicious than the modern ones? If ancient organisms could develop immunity agaist them, why would the modern ones fail to do so?

It's not about things being more malicious. It's about us being unprepared. Sure, we might develop immunity or vaccines against them, but for that to happen, they need to affect us first. It's all not unlike the first colonists being exposed to unknown diseases and in return accidentally exposing, for example, Native Americans to our bacteria/viruses. It's also quite like the flu epidemic in Belgium this winter. It was a strain of the flu we hadn't seen in 10 years so people's bodies were unprepared for it and the vaccinations people had been given had been against the wrong strain of the flu.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
(iii) Overall, I am much more concerned about devastating effects from possible human crafted new viruses, and from other human-made malicious agents like synthetic drugs, for example, than I am about hypothetical "old deseases" that may or may not get released from permafrost.

Okay, good for you.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
(i) Some parts of the planet suffer from heat, others suffer from cold. This is the case now, and this probably will be the case in the foreseeable future. What's important is that the overall (i.e. global) conditions for food production not degrade, and I'd guess they are actually likely to impove with warming (although I admit I lack thorough analysis on this). In specific areas adjustment / compensatory measures may be necessary. That's life, we all have to adjust to changes.


Crops take a specific set of weather patterns to grow, though this can differ per crop. The heat wave of the past months has caused a lot of crop failure in Belgium leading to significantly fewer
(and smaller) potatoes. That was just a heatwave of a couple of days and a drought of a couple of months. Fruit has been affected as well.

Additionally, it's not as simple as warmer weather leading to more food. Assuming climate change will cause warmer weather is a significant misunderstanding of the concept of climate change. The overall global temperature increases, yes, but it'll make for more intense summers (droughts, heat waves etc.) as well as more intense winters.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
(ii) I hear even from media reports that many of the recent "uncontrollable fires" are likely to have resulted from arson. So what we really must do is strengthen law enforcement and forest management, rather than detract attention and resources to fighting losing battles with planet's climate and/or foundations of math.

Even if fires have been lit deliberately (or accidentally), that doesn't change the fact that it leads to "uncontrollable fires" as the vegetation is suffering from the drought. Also, not every forest fire has resulted from arson, so the point still stands. I'm sure a country can invest in both law enforcement and science.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
As climate warming will open more terroties to agriculture, global benefits from that will many-fold exceed any global costs associated with adjustment to this better environment.

And you have studies proving this claim? How many more territories will be available for agriculture? How much will that produce? How will that weigh against the money lost from current systems failing and needing to be adapted (if at all possible)?

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:

(ii) I don't know if there is any statistics that supports the link between increased flooding and (possible) climate change. Regardless of that there must be adequate hydro-technical infrastructure in place. As far as I know, most recent cases of floodings and sill flows in Russia were due largely to poor maintenance of infrastructure rather than to abnomally extreme weather conditions. I don't know if that's the case in other countries.

http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/1/6
https://psmag.com/environment/how-climate-change-contributed-to-massive-floods-in-south-asia
https://nerc.ukri.org/planetearth/stories/1849/
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/global-warming-impacts/floods#.W4PqVegzaUk
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/feb/08/climate-change-is-increasing-flood-risks-in-europe

Yes, there should be adequate hydro-technical infrastructure. It's not in place everywhere because placing it there costs money (and votes).

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
99+ percent of migration originates not from climate problems, but from human-made problems: from destabilized countries and whole regions, from wars, from erosion of education and culture, and subsequent moral and mental degradation and radicalization, - and from famine and economic destruction that result from those deliberately created "crises".

If we can reverse this trend, I am sure we acn cope with any adjustments related to climate change that may occasionally become necessary.

Whether current migration is due to climate change or not is not the point I was making. I said that it will be the cause of migration. (Also I'd love a source for that 99% claim.)

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Hmm, maybe... Is there evidence of such effects?

Feel free to read up on the potential connections:
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/impacts/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html#.W4PruOgzaUk
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
https://www.c2es.org/content/hurricanes-and-climate-change/
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/hurricanes-and-climate-change-what-we-know

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
During the 20th century the sea level increased 17 cm. People can easily make up for such slow increase, especially if they were not wasting so much time and resources on wars and other non-productive undertakings and paid more attention to improving planet's conditions and infrastructure instead. If we have to raise dams even 0,5 m a century this is quite affordable, compared to the need to re-build those dams altogether twice in the 20th centure due to two world wars.


Between now and 2100, sea level is expected to increase anywhere between 1 (30cm) and 4 foot (121cm).
I'd love it if people wasted less money and time on wars and other non-productive undertakings, but this is the world we live in.

Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2018 8:51:14 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 5,309
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Lotje1000 wrote:

I'd love it if people wasted less money and time on wars and other non-productive undertakings, but this is the world we live in.



The world is what we make it to be, as far as human deeds are concerned. So I'd concentrate on fixing overwhelmingly destructive policies, over which people have much more direct control, compared to the planet's climate.
Hope123
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2018 9:59:04 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 10,049
Neurons: 57,307
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Will wrote:...the dangers of large numbers in a population choosing subjective ‘truths’ rather than more accurate explanations.

There IS a comparison to be made between large numbers of the population using myths and fables to deny climate change because of economic and selfish national interests and large numbers of the population who use a testament of myths and fables as their basis for their point of view about second comings and thus actions in life. Religion is a two edged sword - it helps to control people to behave better, but it also creates contention, violence, and death.

Epi, Lotje, and Absinthius have made good points.

Humans have tunnel vision, have spun facts to suit their own biases, have engineered the destruction of much wildlife that have as much right to life on earth as humans, have started wars to gain influence, power, and territory, and are fouling their own nest.

We humans think we are intelligent only because WE have defined ourselves as such. Not so much.
will
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2018 10:43:19 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
Hope123 wrote:
There IS a comparison to be made…
Indeed. That is certainly my opinion. On the one hand it’s easy to brush such things aside as idle (supernatural or unscientific) threats; on the other hand, the slippery slope is hard to ignore.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Forgive the lost as they fell victims of deceit.
Do not forgive those who consciously sow ignorance and turmoil in Thy world, as that kin's intent is to spoil and corrupt the world Thou created, and to steal it from Thee.


I mean, wow! Nice, eh?
This kind of pious vindictiveness is becoming increasingly widespread, across several mutually exclusive Faith based dogmas, across a ‘shrinking’ world; that cannot be a good thing for humanity as a whole.
Imagine if a person, with this kind of divine certitude, were just one big orange heart attack away from having their Rapture-Ready finger on the biggest nuclear arsenal on the planet. d'oh!

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
So I'd concentrate on fixing overwhelmingly destructive policies, over which people have much more direct control, compared to the planet's climate.

Like when humanity phased out ozone-depleting substances in the early 1990’s?

Of course, there is an equally valid opinion that says phasing CFC’s was unnecessary, because we could just have made sure we only used them indoors. Think


.

will
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2018 10:47:10 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
Absinthius wrote:
This has been my understanding all along!

Bless you for your Faith (we're not doing the 'Devotion' thing this time around, because that all got a bit weird and Stalkerish). When the time comes you can collect your allotted virgins from reception. Pray


.
Hope123
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2018 10:51:14 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 10,049
Neurons: 57,307
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Perhaps it is worth explaining a bit more how science comes to conclusions about topics rather than using the anecdotal testaments of individuals in the Bible and in the media today with climate change.

First of all, it is important that those doing the experiments are in the actual and not just a related field. For instance, the more expertise in climate science, the higher the scientific agreement on human-caused global warming.

When coming to a consensus scientists don't do a vote as in politics. When a question is first asked, while they set about scientifically testing and finding answers, they disagree at first. But gradually as it becomes clearer with more proven facts, they stop trying to disprove, accept the science, and begin using citations from the works of others. Scientists just gave up arguing about the topic of climate change because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling that it is in the largest part anthropogenic.

In recent findings, the fact that humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. Around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position. I took this info from a map denoting the countries.

Thus science uses a preponderance of peer reviewed information rather than anecdotes of myths and fables used as testaments, spoken or written, today or in the past.

In Biblical times, the various authors of the Bible went with the beliefs of the time, scientific and otherwise, but it is now many years later and science has affected how many view the Bible, the existence of supernatural beings, and the ability of those supernatural beings to reappear in their human bodies after death. There is absolutely no proof this has ever happened. No one has ever been permanently dead and come back to life to tell us about it.

So no, from a scientific POV, my opinion is that Jesus, if he lived, will not be coming back.
Absinthius
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2018 11:17:59 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 382
Neurons: 26,708
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
To add to that, Hope, scientific fields and observations should never be regarded as singluar. By that I mean that science scetches a view of reality that is as accurate and consistent as possible and combines facts from all relevant fields and sciences. If observations from e.g. physics are inconsistent with a chemical hypothesis, this requires further studies before we can agree on a model.

Not only has long-lasting death never been demonstrated to be reversible, degradation of organic matter over time (in the natural circumstances as we have on earth) has proven to be rather inevitable.

So if Jesus has ever lived, his body no longer exists, making it impossible for it to revive.

This is where faith tends to take a huge leap, this next step is where faith completely disregards science and ensures that any further correlation or cooperation with science is made completely impossible:

Faith suggests that a being is it's soul rather than it's body, and that the soul is independent of the body. As nice and bubbly as this idea might be, noone has ever in the history of religion been able to actually define what a soul is. An amazing tactic if you want something to stay uncontested and untested.

Considering the humongous amount of time and energy that has been spent on trying to figure out everything there is to know about biological life, and considering the plethora of different ways people have tried to measure, quantify and visualize life and living organisms. Nobody has ever demonstrated anything of scientific value that would indicate there is anything even remotely like a soul that goes beyond the biological body and can be grafted into another one.

This makes the belief in ressurection (of anyone, including Jesus) utterly and completely unscientific and banally ridiculous. It requires belief in something that has never been proven to exist, despite a LOT of people looking for it in a LOT of ways. It is rather embarassing that we still have discussions on this in the year 2018.

If you consider all the facts, even in you pick and choose just the ones you like, there is only one possible conclusion: no biblical characters are coming back to life. Ever. Just won't happen. No amount of believe and wishing will change that.
will
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2018 12:49:52 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
Hope123 wrote:
First of all, it is important that those doing the experiments are in the actual and not just a related field. For instance, the more expertise in climate science, the higher the scientific agreement on human-caused global warming.

Absinthius beat me to it, but...

They are all related fields, to some extent, but I get your point. A geologist’s opinion on the effects of an earthquake are likely to carry more weight than a biologist’s, and a seismologist’s specific opinion on the potential size and timing of future earthquakes is most likely greater than both.

However, I don’t think in reality anyone disputes this, or at least most people take this for granted when it doesn’t rub up against personal ideologies. The issue is cognitive dissonance arising from quite basic triggers.
It’s not uncommon to see creationists talking about DNA, sometimes in informed detail, but still rejecting evolution; they’ll defend scientific facts about DNA (as evidence of a creator) at length, yet if you able able to point out that no geneticist would consider one without the other, they’ll wheel out a physician from Montana as proof that the issue is not settled.

While one should avoid – he says Shhh –getting dragged into the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum, it is a difficult not to point out that when the overwhelming majority of scientist – approaching 100% in closely associated fields – and every single scientific body of national and international standing, and every single Government (give or take the USA) on the planet are in agreement – on either evolution or climate change – then the matter is about as settled as it’s ever going to get.

I think it is possible to be theist and scientific, I know many such people. But I don’t believe science and theism are compatible. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but it seems to me that those who do combine the two do so by some very subtle compartmentalization, though I have no idea how.


.
will
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2018 12:51:51 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
Absinthius wrote:
Faith suggests that a being is it's soul rather than it's body, and that the soul is independent of the body. As nice and bubbly as this idea might be, noone has ever in the history of religion been able to actually define what a soul is

If I had to describe my immortal soul I would say, with my scientific hat on, that it’s the genes that have (temporarily) hijacked the mobile lump of flesh I call my body. With my more romantic hat on, I’d say my soul will live on in the memories of others and in any tangible legacy I leave behind.

As far as Jesus is concerned, he may statistically still be knocking about in gene form, but most certainly won’t be ‘returning’. In the latter romantic sense, perhaps he might ‘return’ in a worldwide revival of Christian faith... perhaps. The pressing question for now is whether that will bought about via ‘peace’ or via the ‘sword’ as in Matthew 10:34-36 Think


.
Absinthius
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2018 2:41:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 382
Neurons: 26,708
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
will wrote:

If I had to describe my immortal soul I would say, with my scientific hat on, that it’s the genes that have (temporarily) hijacked the mobile lump of flesh I call my body.

A nice attempt, but this is does not really fit with how that term is used in the faith context.

Also there are some practical issues with this definition. If your soul was basically the gene-set your body carries around, then that would mean that if you were cloned your 'soul' would be the same in your clone? Not a claim I have heard from any priest or theologist before. It would also imply that identical twins are expected to have the same soul.

A soul in the religious context seems to be more related to a personality. Considering perosnality is only partly related to genetics, this definition doesn't really ooze consistency either. Take for example stroke survivors, they can display quite striking changes in personality, would this then mean that they 'swapped souls'?

Considering that the scientific side of this equation requires nothing similar to the soul I would argue that the burden of providing an adequate definition is on those who consider it a relevant factor to enter into the discussion.

will wrote:
With my more romantic hat on, I’d say my soul will live on in the memories of others and in any tangible legacy I leave behind.

A nice and comforting thought, very romantic indeed. But I'm sure you'll agree utterly pointless in scientific discourse.
Y111
Posted: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:25:33 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 397
Neurons: 1,974
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Your soul is obviously your operating system. It's not entirely software, but I guess it can be implemented as such and then installed on another hardware. Probably a backup copy of it is made at some point in your life (hopefully not when you are in senile decay) and stored somewhere. When Jesus comes, he will examine the logs of our lives and sort us out. The better ones will later run on a Paradise computer with fast processors and a lot of memory, and the worse ones on a lousy Hell one where they will struggle for scarce resources.
Absinthius
Posted: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 4:01:46 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 382
Neurons: 26,708
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
Y111 wrote:
Your soul is obviously your operating system. It's not entirely software,

It's software, but not entirely software? Not the best start if this is meant to be a definition.

As far as the analogy goes, an operating system controls whatever it is operating, I'm assuming in your analogy, this is your body? We have pretty much worked out how our bodies work, no operating system is needed.

From what I remember, religion teaches that only humans have souls, right? Yet every living organism has a functioning body. Clearly an operating system is at best optional.

Y111 wrote:
but I guess it can be implemented as such and then installed on another hardware.

You are right in qualifying this as a guess, there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. As far as guesses go, I'd wager it's probably not a correct one. How would this work exactly?

Y111 wrote:
Probably a backup copy of it is made at some point in your life (hopefully not when you are in senile decay) and stored somewhere.

Uh huh.. In 'the cloud" I presume?..

I'm aware that your post wasn't intended to actually try and define the word soul in this way, don't worry. But considering the operating system analogy seems to be a rather popular one why not comment right away?! It's a fun one.
Epiphileon
Posted: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 4:49:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,342
Neurons: 167,374
Y111 wrote:
Your soul is obviously your operating system. It's not entirely software, but I guess it can be implemented as such and then installed on another hardware. Probably a backup copy of it is made at some point in your life (hopefully not when you are in senile decay) and stored somewhere. When Jesus comes, he will examine the logs of our lives and sort us out. The better ones will later run on a Paradise computer with fast processors and a lot of memory, and the worse ones on a lousy Hell one where they will struggle for scarce resources.


This is the first time I have seen "Matrix" themed theology, or a theology based in the notion of reality being a simulation. Impressive and scary as hell. God as the MCP (Master Control Program(Tron)).
Y111
Posted: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 8:44:34 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 397
Neurons: 1,974
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Absinthius wrote:
Y111 wrote:
Your soul is obviously your operating system. It's not entirely software,

It's software, but not entirely software? Not the best start if this is meant to be a definition.

Well, I mean software is a sequence of instructions a processor needs to perform a task. But there are also chips that don't need it. They are simply built so that if you put something in, they put something out. We can see them as executing a program, but it's not software. But we can implement it as such and execute on a more "generic" chip, like the CPU of a PC.

It's software emulation. One computer program may think the computer has a CD drive, whereas it's only emulated by another program. You can have several operating systems running on virtual machines and exchanging information via a virtual network.

Absinthius wrote:
Y111 wrote:
Probably a backup copy of it is made at some point in your life (hopefully not when you are in senile decay) and stored somewhere.

Uh huh.. In 'the cloud" I presume?..

Nice catch! :) That's the source of those pictures with God sitting on a cloud. A hint that wasn't understood correctly until now.
Y111
Posted: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 8:49:44 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 397
Neurons: 1,974
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Epiphileon wrote:
This is the first time I have seen "Matrix" themed theology, or a theology based in the notion of reality being a simulation. Impressive and scary as hell. God as the MCP (Master Control Program(Tron)).

Why is it scary? If it's true, it's just how things are. Whatever explanation we give to our life, it won't change the life itself.
Absinthius
Posted: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 9:24:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 382
Neurons: 26,708
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
Y111 wrote:
You can have several operating systems running on virtual machines and exchanging information via a virtual network.

I guess this proves telepathy then, you are a goldmine for supernatural facts!
Epiphileon
Posted: Thursday, August 30, 2018 3:21:43 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,342
Neurons: 167,374
Y111 wrote:
Epiphileon wrote:
This is the first time I have seen "Matrix" themed theology, or a theology based in the notion of reality being a simulation. Impressive and scary as hell. God as the MCP (Master Control Program(Tron)).

Why is it scary?

Y111 wrote:
The better ones will later run on a Paradise computer with fast processors and a lot of memory, and the worse ones on a lousy Hell one where they will struggle for scarce resources.
That's why.

Y111 wrote:
Your soul is obviously your operating system. It's not entirely software, but I guess it can be implemented as such and then installed on another hardware.

This statement illustrates the problem with using computer metaphors for human mentality. There is no analogous mental function of the brain to software, the brain/mind, and all of it's behaviors are wetware. If a behavior changes permanently as a result of experience there is a structural change in the architecture of the brain, if a behavior demonstrates variability in response to various external stimuli, and internal activation, it is the result of differing levels of excitation along the responsible circuits, or a different set of circuitry activation. Dementia, like any other physical trauma to the brain results in permanent changes to the brain/minds abilities.

Behavioral development, and learned behaviors of the brain/mind can be seen as a form of programming; however, it cannot be seen as software installation that is not how it works. No matter what software I install on my computer the chips remain the same, this is not true in the brain.

Besides this it seems that there is some strange mix of dualism and monism in this argument that I can not quite put my finger on.

Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.