Real World Event Discussions

Isn't science great?

POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2009 04:27
VIEWED: 11561
PAGE 7 of 8

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:57 AM

Because I'm a genius and I'm weird and I can do a reasonable amount of math even though it interests me none at all, and I'm not a stranger to hard work, I guess I'd have to go with 5.

I think 5's a pretty damn good reason.

How about reason number 6: Science will be the weapon used to kill us or enslave us all in the end.

I haven't really recieved any arguement about that little point in here, even from the science types, except that it is the people behind science that will do it and that isn't science's fault, but human nature.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Sunday, February 18, 2007 1:08 AM

I think the human issue you have a problem with started with the use of language.

Now THAT'S some tool!

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, February 18, 2007 1:10 AM

I can't argue you there. 99% of the things that humans say should have been left unsaid.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Sunday, February 18, 2007 1:14 AM

Not just that. By having independent representations for things, we can put those representations together in ways that might not exist in real life. Hence, we can have 'ideas' of things that don't exist. A form of lie.

added: if you want to get biblical, it's the knowledge of good and evil.

Maybe we should be autochthons.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Not just that. By having independent representations for things, we can put those representations together in ways that might not exist in real life. Hence, we can have 'ideas' of things that don't exist. A form of lie.

added: if you want to get biblical, it's the knowledge of good and evil.

Maybe we should be autochthons.

Not exactly sure of what you mean here Rue. Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as good and evil?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:32 AM

Just that humanity's basic error was in developing language.

shoulda' stuck with grunts and pointing

RUE

Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:41 AM

Actually, that's not true.

There have been cultures where people had language, fire, metalworking, agriculture, wheels - but not religion, or heirarchy, or war.

And somehow most of the rest of humanity went down the wrong path when they got those things. It IS possible to have the fruits of technology without the downside. We just need to figure out how.

For example, it's been said that large-scale war wouldn't be possible without agriculture. That agriculture allowed for concentrated excess, which was cornered by a ruling class in a positive-feedback cycle. That the ruling class was then able to direct society to use its excess for war on others. So agriculture was necessary for hierarchies and war.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, February 18, 2007 6:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
shoulda' stuck with grunts and pointing

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr...... Ooooga Grunt....

Quote:
And somehow most of the rest of humanity went down the wrong path when they got those things. It IS possible to have the fruits of technology without the downside. We just need to figure out how.

For example, it's been said that large-scale war wouldn't be possible without agriculture. That agriculture allowed for concentrated excess, which was cornered by a ruling class in a positive-feedback cycle. That the ruling class was then able to direct society to use its excess for war on others. So agriculture was necessary for hierarchies and war.

Now we're getting somewhere. I think the first step is to dethrone the Repuglicrat Alliance. No more Bushites or Clintonheads. We need a new voice in our government here to weed out the corruption and greed. Then we need to keep them honest too because, as we all know, nothing screws up a good thing like power.

Interesting point about the agriculture. I've never heard of that before, but it would seem a perfectly plausable explaination as to the origins of the mess we're in now.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

JASONZZZ

Thursday, March 15, 2007 3:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BattlestarMinnesotia:
The thing I think that gets lost about scientific stuff in the regular public is; It's the questions that the scientists get all liquidy about. So it sorta makes then come across as indecisive.

The particular thing about global warming "theory" that makes me crazy, is that the only system we have to observe is the actual biosphere, so it's not possible to "prove" something in climate sciences in that super rock-solid way that everyone seems to demand for "theories" they don't like. So yeah, you do need to make a judgement call on some of these things. But it doesn't make them unscientific. It's simply not possible to "prove" global warming as human caused because there is no way to test alternative hypothesis objectivley in a controlled way. But one cannot simply throw up their hands and say "we cannot ever know for sure!" because most phenomenon fall into the latter category. We'd never figured anything about the universe at all with that attitude. So you have to start going with likelyhoods. Percent possiblity and all that.

Actually there are numerous different climate models that a lot of these data are collected and then subsequently extrapolated from. Supposedly then, all of the data spitted out by these climate models then collaborates with the prediction that we see published and used to justify the anthropic global warming battle cry today. The problem with these climate models that I see boils down to two folds:

- there is not enough of an understanding of the complexity and all of the interactions in our climate/atmosphere/ecosystem to have these kinds of climate modeling. We are coming up with new stuff every single day on how the atmosphere behave - basic stuff at that. That's the good thing, oh, that's also the bad thing - because some how people really believe in the climate models that we have today.

- some documented evidence from researchers that the parameters fed into the climate models are very very aggresive and generates the worst case scenarios. So if your funding depends on you making models and then turning around with new data that people are interested in, that's one thing, but if your boss or if the media continually only excerpts the two chapters (maybe out of 14 total) which talks about the worst case scenarios - what's your research really worth then?

- research on alternate theories on warming or to counter warming are receiving lack of interest and worst no funding. how's that for blindly focusing on your own conclusion and not looking for other possible causes?

Quote:
Originally posted by BattlestarMinnesotia:

It's kinda like the "Without a shadow of a doubt" threshold in criminal cases vs "Preponderance of evidence" in civil trials.

Think for a second about hte fact that most people--even in the suburbs--won't let their kids out to play in the park and be home by dinnertime; like we did when I was a kid. Why not? Parents are scared of their kid's safety. Child molestors lurk in every park and drive-by shooters are waiting on every street, right? Well, of course not. But the thing is there ARE child molestors and shooters, and most parents figure that even given the relativly SMALL chance their kid will cross one, the potential CONSEQUENCE of that possible event make the rational choice to drive their kids everywhere and supervise everything. Most parents would not argue with me on this I think.

Extrapolating this idea to the ENTIRE GLOBE, doesn't it seem a litttle silly to hold scientists to some unattainable standard of proof, given the catastrophic consequnces at stake? Would you wait for rock-solid proof (letters and photographs, say) of a specific child molestor targetting YOUR kid before you'd START supervising them very closely?

The simple fact is that yeah, they ALL may be wrong about global warming. But the consequences of doing nothing--if humans are causing it--socially, economicly, etc is so severe, so damaging, that even if they ARE wrong we still need to do

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

RUE

Friday, March 16, 2007 2:35 AM

Hi Jasonzzz,

But there ARE facts which are indisputable.

One is that there are greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They are 'greenhouse' gases b/c they don't let the IR radiation (heat) re-radiate back into space. They absorb the radiation instead, trapping the heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape back into space.

The other is that those greenhouse gases - CO2 especially, are now at levels not historically compatible with our current climate.

The third is that the geological carbon cycle takes millions of years. And that is what we humans are messing with - we are taking large quantities of carbon which were stored for millions of years as oil and gas, and releasing it into the atmosphere as CO2. It will be millions of years before it is geologically stored again, if ever.

Given that, that humans are having a measurable and unprecedented effect on CO2 (greenhouse gas) levels in the atmosphere, and that that CO2 is not likely to re-equilibrate to normal levels any time soon, prudence would seem the wisest course.