Anti-Government, but don't touch my Medicare
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, May 7, 2010 16:50
VIEWED: 8545
PAGE 10 of 16
Quote:So what if they seriously aren't capable of hearing?
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Y'all need to remember that in order for the folks you wanna reach with these arguments to "get" them, you have GOT to get it in a format they can wrap their minds around, honestly.
And puh-lease folks! I don't mean to poke CTS with this question. She's being cool about saying she'll look into that book I brought up. OK, so I wish she'd get into this discussion now, cause I think it's cool, and I prefer arguing science over arguing approaches to science. But I get what she's doing. I'm cool to wait it out.
What I mean is: Frem, you have a point. But I seem to often find people on this site who absolutely will not hear, no matter what format I try to put things into. I'm thinking of the long ago God and evolution threads, and a few recent blow-ups that I'd prefer not to return to. Un-Plea-Sant with a capital UPS.
Thing is, I really do put a fair amount of work into trying to make my points as clear and concise as possible. It's disheartening to put time into telling about something and have people completely ignore it. (I'm thinking Anti and evolution. Well, and my posts up this thread too.)
I think my mistake is trying to bring logic and evidence into discussions about gut-feeling beliefs. Some people simply will not let logic intrude on their most dearly held beliefs. Hostility generally results, no matter how carefully my words are chosen.
With some folks, like Rappy and Anti and even... ack! the one who left over the God questions whose name I can't remember but was really a good guy... ack! Who was that?... it's like the hostility is an automatic reaction, a way to defend a belief in the face of evidence against it. When argument fails, belligerence and defensiveness saves the day.
Huh. Then there's me, who can create a tangent and hijack like I got a tanker off the coast of Somalia.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I didn't say she couldn't question, Niki. But are you saying I can't question her questions?
(This is getting fun.)
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
I think that was aimed in my direction, Mal4. And it's a fair enough charge, because I no doubt have over-reacted to CTS's skepticism and taken it as outright dismissal. My bad, and my apologies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
With some folks, like Rappy and Anti and even... ack! the one who left over the God questions whose name I can't remember but was really a good guy... ack! Who was that?...
RIPWash? Was that who you were thinking of?
I miss ol' Ripper. He was conservative, but not in-your-face about it. He was kinda awesome, and he's quite missed. So is AnthonyT. Hope life's treating them very well, and hope they find their way back to our li'l corner of the 'verse one day. Until then, we hold 'til they come back.
Goes double for DreamTrove, also sorely missed.
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A-ha! I had to do a search, but I found it: I meant Causal. And here's the thread:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=29741#522315
One of the more interesting discussions I've encountered here, and one that continues to stick in my mind.
BTW, I saw dismissal in CTS's posts too. I could go back and quote, but there's not much point. I think this horse is beaten beyond dead for the moment.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, rest assured that with me, the main reason I shut up when y'all get all scientific isn't that, it's that I really have NO CLUE enough to say anything, cause it's so tremendously far outside my competence - and I get quickly lost and left behind once I no longer even understand the arguments.
Of course, I favor a simpler set of principles which dodges the issue entirely, mind you.
Just cause I can be really smart dealing with stuff I know about, doesn't mean I actually know the science part of it - the reason I know even as much as I do is that it's all directly related to the specific topic, like how I know about traumas influence on neurobiological development, but I know shit about neurobiology... so my pools of knowledge are very deep, rather than broad.
And I can be seriously dense outside of my competence zone, just so ya know.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
A-ha! I had to do a search, but I found it: I meant Causal. And here's the thread:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=29741#522315
One of the more interesting discussions I've encountered here, and one that continues to stick in my mind.
BTW, I saw dismissal in CTS's posts too. I could go back and quote, but there's not much point. I think this horse is beaten beyond dead for the moment.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
I scanned this thread. Kind of depressed that there is still a debate about evolution going on. It's only in recent years that I have become aware that there are people who still believe in creationism
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
so I figure that if one is going to knock a scientific or economic or ANY hypothesis, one ought to have defensible reasons.
Wait a minute.
One minute you are calling me a hypocrite for not having scientific proof for my economic speculation (you do know that economics is not a science, don't you?). Next minute you are calling me a hypocrite for not having "defensible reasons" for being skeptical of a claim presented as scientific fact.
Of course I have defensible reasons. I have presented them. You don't agree they are defensible. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.
Now, if by "defensible," you mean the same kind of scientific rigor I expect from positive claims of scientific proof, you and I have very different definitions of skepticism.
You don't need scientific proof to be skeptical. The burden of proof is not on the skeptic--it is on the claimant. All the skeptic needs to do, to be skeptical, is to point out holes in the claimant's assertions.
Now, I have discussed the holes in generalities and not in great detail. That doesn't make me a hypocrite. As I said, I was not presenting a formal defense of my position.
Now, be nice and stop calling me a hypocrite. Or I won't buy Ruddiman's book. :P
Seriously, if you and I can't discuss this civilly without your hurling personal accusations at me, time after time, despite my clarifications, I see no point in pursuing this discussion. It either means your mind is made up about what kind of person I am and you are not going to listen to what I have to say, or I am not good at communicating my positions and you are not going to listen to what I have to say. Or both.
Ground rule: Attack my ideas all you want. But don't attack me. OK?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Well, rest assured that with me, the main reason I shut up when y'all get all scientific isn't that, it's that I really have NO CLUE enough to say anything, cause it's so tremendously far outside my competence - and I get quickly lost and left behind once I no longer even understand the arguments.
But surely you have ideas about which side of the global warming debate is more persuasive to you thus far? I'm dying to know.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
As to CTS' theories and posts, I disagree. She said the scientific evidence wasn't empirical enough FOR HER to be completely convinced.
Thank you again, Niki. You summarized beautifully. I'm impressed because one doesn't often see this level of fairness from someone who is on the opposing side of the debate.
Quote:And you notice I keep calling it global warming.
At least then we'd be discussing something which deniers couldn't holler "but it's freezing here, so much for global warming!"
The reason is warming was very central to the global warming theory and movement. The entire foundation for the IPCC report was: "Over both the last 140 years and 100 years, the best estimate is that the global average surface temperature has increased by 0.6 ± 0.2°C." It was all about how this warming was significant and how CO2 could be the cause.
Here's the way I've observed current events. Over time, as the predictions of the warming model failed to come true in the real world, the rhetoric of GW proponents has changed. Now it is "climate change," where we can blame any kind of climate, warm or cold, on CO2.
In science, one of the core tools we have is falsifiability. All hypotheses, to be useful, have to be falsifiable--they have to be stated in a way where they can be proven wrong in experimentation. Otherwise, it is useless.
What I see is the global warming hypothesis being changed in such a way as to make it LESS falsifiable. The new climate change hypothesis has a harder time being proven wrong when matched to real data, since no matter what happens, it is being supported.
This might be a good time for me to raise the question, if you want to use the term "climate change" instead of "global warming," under what conditions would you feel the hypothesis was proven wrong? What in the real world could convince you that there was no climate change going on? What are your criteria for falsifiability?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
It's only in recent years that I have become aware that there are people who still believe in creationism
I believe in creationism. I also believe in evolution. I believe in the inherent goodness of mankind. I also believe mankind is capable of unspeakable evil. I believe in kindness and beauty. I also believe in guns. I believe in pacifism. I also believe pacifists owe their lives to people who are willing to kill.
I have no scientific evidence whatsoever to back up those beliefs--or the 5276 other beliefs I hold.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME