User Tag List

First 3111213141523 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 239

  1. #121
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    I refuse (and have for several years now) to debate or discuss the issue of climate change against those who think it is a farce. I kind of slipped with that in the beginning because I didn't want to watch the thread become only that, but alas it did. It is a waste of energy and they don't have arguments to stand on anyway. I stand by this and still refuse to do so.

    Nevertheless, I find it painfully ironic that this thread is being hijacked by climate change deniers to push their issues, when the premise of the thread was discussing the issue of the general public disagreeing with the scientific consensus and views of the scientists who have worked on these very topics. Honestly, I also find it to be really sad.
    The above that Tellenbach just posted was exactly the kind of thing I just got done talking about too. Notice how it goes nowhere. Look at the comments on the article for the relevant public opinions and a demonstration on how facts do jack all to effect them on either side. There's people commenting about how the author of the article is an idiot and pretty much wrong time and time again so it is rather plain that the article itself does practically nothing except stir up more shitposting. It's not like the readers can do anything about it, most aren't scientists, most can't verify the truth of the article in any way, and it is more simply polarizing than it is informative. Also it totally doesn't have an agenda and there's no agenda going on here and I'm a space penguin from another dimension here to conquer the earth.

    Edit:
    Also I might have actually been interested in what it had to say if I could trust it but I pretty much can't trust hardly anything these days because you never can tell.

  2. #122
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,960

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    The above that Tellenbach just posted was exactly the kind of thing I just got done talking about too. Notice how it goes nowhere. Look at the comments on the article for the relevant public opinions and a demonstration on how facts do jack all to effect them on either side. There's people commenting about how the author of the article is an idiot and pretty much wrong time and time again so it is rather plain that the article itself does practically nothing except stir up more shitposting. It's not like the readers can do anything about it, most aren't scientists, most can't verify the truth of the article in any way, and it is more simply polarizing than it is informative. Also it totally doesn't have an agenda and there's no agenda going on here and I'm a space penguin from another dimension here to conquer the earth.

    Edit:
    Also I might have actually been interested in what it had to say if I could trust it but I pretty much can't trust hardly anything these days because you never can tell.
    When it comes to climate change, I defer most of my opinions on it to that of the experts in the field. I feel most should do this as well. I'm in grad school, and am a scientist, but I'm working on a PhD in organic chemistry... not exactly related to climate science. When it comes to certain types of medical, biological, or pharmacy science issues, then yes I will do some or a lot of the interpreting myself since that is within my area and ability to understand. I would be a fool though to think I can well understand and interpret climate research well. I'm not versed or qualified for it. I can try, but it doesn't mean I'll be right with it. The most logical and fair thing to do is to listen to individuals to work in it, or have the credentials and ability to understand it. I mean, part of their job is to inform the public on what is what, why on earth would a common person reject it? It doesn't make any sense to me. I might be smart, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking I can do everything. It's also a reason why I don't debate the nitty gritty details of it like I will with pharmaceutical debates, GMO debates, or others similar things; I don't have the knowledge, qualifications, or ability to do so in a productive manner.

    I really feel this is where a lot of the problem comes from. People thinking they have the ability and skills to say what is credible or not. The fact of the matter is, most don't.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari

    Likes Rambling liked this post

  3. #123
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    When it comes to climate change, I defer most of my opinions on it to that of the experts in the field. I feel most should do this as well. I'm in grad school, and am a scientist, but I'm working on a PhD in organic chemistry... not exactly related to climate science. When it comes to certain types of medical, biological, or pharmacy science issues, then yes I will do some or a lot of the interpreting myself since that is within my area and ability to understand. I would be a fool though to think I can well understand and interpret climate research well. I'm not versed or qualified for it. I can try, but it doesn't mean I'll be right with it. The most logical and fair thing to do is to listen to individuals to work in it, or have the credentials and ability to understand it. I mean, part of their job is to inform the public on what is what, why on earth would a common person reject it? It doesn't make any sense to me. I might be smart, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking I can do everything. It's also a reason why I don't debate the nitty gritty details of it like I will with pharmaceutical debates, GMO debates, or others similar things; I don't have the knowledge, qualifications, or ability to do so in a productive manner.

    I really feel this is where a lot of the problem comes from. People thinking they have the ability and skills to say what is credible or not. The fact of the matter is, most don't.
    Yeah I'm more about computer sciences and applied physics and electronics than all this climate stuff so I can identify. I can kind of see how it would work and I know what I think but I'm not going to go around telling people that I know this and that for sure because I don't.

  4. #124
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    'Professional' == 'getting paid to do it' vs. 'Professional' == 'accredited by having earned an advanced degree in a relevant field' vs. 'Professional' == 'dog-whistle to indicate one who agrees with our current fad' ?
    "Professional" as in their work passes muster when vetted by colleagues in their field: it merits publication in peer-reviewed journals; they get tenure or seniority in their workplaces; and their work is funded by a variety of funding agencies (reflecting diversity of goals and perspectives, and not just being in the pay of one sponsor).
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  5. #125
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    "Professional" as in their work passes muster when vetted by colleagues in their field: it merits publication in peer-reviewed journals; they get tenure or seniority in their workplaces; and their work is funded by a variety of funding agencies (reflecting diversity of goals and perspectives, and not just being in the pay of one sponsor).
    Provided of course, that the peer review is done in good faith; that the colleagues aren't doing a circle-jerk of mutual promotion (as happens in real estate via levering, and which has been alleged in the case of Climate Science, by other researchers; and tenure isn't either a blind chase for money given by government agencies with an agenda to promote).

    You might enjoy, for example, the food fight over what each side in this debate calls the other, here:

    ‘Denier,’ ‘Alarmist,’ ‘Warmist,’ ‘Contrarian,’ ‘Confusionist,’ ‘Believer,’ | Yale Climate Connections

    One of the problems, touched on in this thread, is the role of the press in all this: but the press seems given to bombastic sensationalism: which leads to clickthroughs and ad revenue, but when the predictions touted fall short, it is not always journalism which is discredited, but science.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.
    Likes Rambling liked this post

  6. #126
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    I refuse (and have for several years now) to debate or discuss the issue of climate change against those who think it is a farce. I kind of slipped with that in the beginning because I didn't want to watch the thread become only that, but alas it did. It is a waste of energy and they don't have arguments to stand on anyway. I stand by this and still refuse to do so.

    Nevertheless, I find it painfully ironic that this thread is being hijacked by climate change deniers to push their issues, when the premise of the thread was discussing the issue of the general public disagreeing with the scientific consensus and views of the scientists who have worked on these very topics. Honestly, I also find it to be really sad.
    If you're talking about me, have the grace to do so directly to me.

    I find it painfully ironic that you are trying to call it science: when it is in fact only computer modeling, based on fragmentary data, which does not go back long enough, at high enough resolution, even to back test the basic models.

    The links I gave, were to articles which contained further links, to discussions of some of the raw data used, and the protocols used to massage that data prior to its input into the models.

    Why you feel that is not germane, or should be dismissed with a mere ad hominem, is beyond me.

    However, it appears that you and I *do* in fact agree on one major element -- which is that the press, which is supposed to inform the public, is not doing a very good job here; I believe that the constant search for ratings, page-views, and click throughs -- leads to unwarranted exaggeration or sensationalism; and when the claims are exposed, it is not journalism which suffers, but the reputation of science.

    (Incidentally, @Tellenbach's prior post, to which I believe you were responding, is in fact quoting from a popular newspaper. Which is rather ironic, considering...)
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.
    Likes Rambling liked this post

  7. #127
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    However, it appears that you and I *do* in fact agree on one major element -- which is that the press, which is supposed to inform the public, is not doing a very good job here; I believe that the constant search for ratings, page-views, and click throughs -- leads to unwarranted exaggeration or sensationalism; and when the claims are exposed, it is not journalism which suffers, but the reputation of science.
    As interesting as the war is, this is the real kernel of the problem here. The press does not exist to inform you. It is an entertainment medium designed to look like information. There are some hard facts in it but most of the serious articles represent a viewpoint expressed with the primary purpose of getting you to part with your money. They sell you this stuff, ergo it needs to be marketable.

    I'd wager that only the most dry and specialised of reporting mediums (something like "telegraph poles for you") would include actual raw information for the "delight" of it's specialised audience. Everyone else, it's about the numbers.

    Anyone put any stock in a tobacco company who tells you that it's scientists have proven that smoking has health benefits which can outweigh the risks (should any such claim be made and I would not be shocked if it were)?

    It is because of these issues where the media gets involved and starts pointing fingers that common Joe has no real faith any more. It would be the same if they got into religion.... Actually I have a cunning plan.....
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?
    Likes Rambling liked this post

  8. #128
    Senior Member Rambling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post

    If the raw data is available, then by definition it will support your conclusions.
    If there are legitimate reasons to adjust the data, explain them as well as the original and massaged data.

    The way that fraud *is* detected, is when results cannot be replicated, or data is fudged: refusal to supply the data means that the theorem purportedly derived from that data are
    (the drum roll, please) "non-falsifiable".

    Which is, you know, what "scientists" claim their entire grounds for superiority over quacks, frauds, and charlatans, resides in.

    Or, as the late Nobel physicist Richard Feynman (PhD in theoretical physics from MIT at age 21) said,

    "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
    With this I agree. @grey_beard has only been using climate change as an *example* of the thread topic I think. He seems to have been unreasonably castigated for stating what is a fairly standard and recognised set of scientific views.

    On the point of the thread I would add to what has been said already:

    There's lies, damned lies and statistics...in other words how the raw data is analysed to find trends and how reliable those trends are as interpreters of the data is very poorly understood by the general public.

    Add to that the desire of the media for a 'new slant' or an exciting headline, their ability to cut and paste interviews losing the half of the original quote which they choose to disregard, and balance is soon lost. Combine that with the problem that research needs to produce new results which are worthwhile to businesses within a certain time frame to continue to be funded...and you begin to scratch the surface of the problem..

  9. #129
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Using publications to make a point about verifying data when you can't verify the publication is problematic. Whether the scientists themselves do it right or not is irrelevant to this topic because they might as well be in a completely different secret world for how moot it is when the public isn't guaranteed to get the right information, can't verify whether it is right or not, and even if it is right they don't actually know what it means to begin with.

    Discussing it is essentially a complete waste of time.

    Edit:
    Moreover this topic is still about what scientists view vs. the public. Two different views, and how different they are. Whether the views are correct or not is entirely irrelevant. Whether the scientists are doing it right or not is also entirely irrelevant. The OP article doesn't actually say the scientists are more right, just that they're more different.

  10. #130
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    As interesting as the war is, this is the real kernel of the problem here. The press does not exist to inform you. It is an entertainment medium designed to look like information. There are some hard facts in it but most of the serious articles represent a viewpoint expressed with the primary purpose of getting you to part with your money. They sell you this stuff, ergo it needs to be marketable.

    I'd wager that only the most dry and specialised of reporting mediums (something like "telegraph poles for you") would include actual raw information for the "delight" of it's specialised audience. Everyone else, it's about the numbers.

    Anyone put any stock in a tobacco company who tells you that it's scientists have proven that smoking has health benefits which can outweigh the risks (should any such claim be made and I would not be shocked if it were)?

    It is because of these issues where the media gets involved and starts pointing fingers that common Joe has no real faith any more. It would be the same if they got into religion.... Actually I have a cunning plan.....
    We also can't truly trust data that we don't gather ourselves.

    Think of knowledge as a large machine and all the people are sensors which pass information to the CPU. Sensors which aren't verifiably calibrated can't be depended on. You can't depend on the sensor telling you if it is correct or not because it might not know it has a problem. Similarly, data from sources you aren't familiar with is basically useless for anything except general ideas.

    Making assumptions that all the sensors have done their job correctly leads to things like lost airplanes and Hubble telescopes that don't work right after they've been put into space.
    Likes Xander liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Final decision on my type between INTP and INFP.
    By Cat Brainz in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-01-2016, 07:10 PM
  2. Russian Orthodoxy on the rise with decreasing seperation between church and state
    By UniqueMixture in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-05-2012, 01:57 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-05-2010, 01:58 AM
  4. on this day midway between solstice and christmas
    By bcvcdc in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-23-2009, 08:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO