Anti-Government, but don't touch my Medicare

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, May 7, 2010 16:50
VIEWED: 8545
PAGE 12 of 16

Fine. I will address the issue of hypocrisy one last time. But if you still don't get what I am trying to say, I will say we don't have enough common ground to invest in and move forward with a real debate. This horse has been beat to death.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Because you saw fit to offer a lecture on the scientific method, thus setting yourself up as something of an expert?

---

Yes, I am setting myself as an "expert" on the scientific method. At least, I am claiming to know what the scientific method is.

Quote:

---

Because you're interested in forming ideas based on real, provable, reality?

---

But see here. Not ALL my ideas are based on real, provable reality. Get that? Certain ideas of mine fall within the scope of science and require scientific proof. Other ideas are religious, philosophical, subjective, based on personal values and experiences. Those DO NOT require scientific proof.

I homeschool and believe it is what's best for my children. Do I have scientific, empirical proof of that? No. Do I need to? No. Homeschooling is not a scientific issue. See?

I think paranormal phenomena and aliens exist. Do I have scientific proof? No. Do I need to? No. While these topics could be the subject of scientific study, my speculation is NOT scientific. It is speculation based on personal experiences and values. I am not imposing this particular idea on others, so I don't really need proof for it. See?

I think mercury is a neurotoxin that should be reduced or eliminated from industrial emissions. Do I have scientific proof? Yes. Not extremely hard proof, but hard enough where I see support for taking precautions. Do I need it? Yes. Because I am claiming there is science to prove it, so I should show the proof. Moreover, I want others to take positive action based on my idea, so I need to demonstrate objective evidence.

I am skeptical about Suspect A committing the murder. Do I have scientific proof? No. You don't need to know who committed the murder AND be able to prove it to doubt that Suspect A did it. Do I need it? No. All you need is to point out certain inconsistencies that underlie the skepticism.

If GW were just a speculation, I might take a fancy to it. But we're talking about forcing our nation to shoulder huge costs to act on this. THEN, I require much more proof and rigor.

Do you see now, the difference between a position requiring empirical proof that has scientific rigor, vs personal preferences, personal fantasies, and skepticism/reasonable doubt?

Because if you don't, I think we have too many voculary and language differences to communicate with each other effectively.

Quote:

---

...and you'd like people to have some confidence in the ideas you present?

---

Sure. But I would expect their confidence to be commensurate with the level of proof I offer. Re oil and carbon sequestration, I already stipulated that it was speculation, and I didn't have any proof. If you have no confidence in it, that is perfectly fine with me. I don't have any confidence in it. What's the problem? Am I not allowed to speculate?

Quote:

---

Cause let's review: You came out and claimed that scientists are using methods that "do not meet scientific rigor" and that therefore "it is correct to point the shortcomings out."

---

Correct.

Quote:

---

Apparently you meant that it is correct for you point out the shortcomings of other people's methods, but it is not correct for me to call out the shortcomings of your methods.

---

You did point out shortcomings, and I acknowledged them. I also acknowledged that I had no "methods" regarding this one speculation--cause you know, it's speculation.

So where did you get the impression that "it was not correct"? My only contention that it was not hypocritical. Accepting shortcomings and being hypocritical are two different things.

Quote:

---

And yet if I want better, harder evidence from you because I am open to the possibility that you may be wrong, I'm not "playing nice".

---

Bette

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Yes, I am setting myself as an "expert" on the scientific method. At least, I am claiming to know what the scientific method is.

---

And yet, you apparently can't have an extended discussion of the factual basis of your claims? You post a few links and tell me to go look things up? As interested as I am in having this discussion, I feel very little motivation to put time into going to those latest links and presenting your research for you, especially since the research I presented above fell dead.

I have tried and tried to have that factual discussion of Climate Change with you, but after about a post and a half what I keep getting is some variation: "Well, I don't need to get into that because I am not a scientist and my ideas are "religious, philosophical, subjective, based on personal values and experiences. Those DO NOT require scientific proof"

Quote:

---

I think paranormal phenomena and aliens exist. Do I have scientific proof? No. Do I need to?

---

Huh? I'm not and have never been talking about your home-schooling methods, paranormal phenomena, aliens, etc. I have very specifically been addressing your claim that Climate Change is "not scientific rigorous" "if not a fraud" (if you didn't mean to suggest it's a fraud you shouldn't have used the word and gone on to talk about the reasons for the fraud!)

In your own words, your objections to climate change are NOT religious or philosophical. You very specifically raised questioned "scientific rigor". So now I'm confused. Did you mean that or not? Is this temperature data actually what you mean as a "religious, philosophical, subjective" issue? Because if that's what you mean, then we do have a pretty uncrossable divide. In my world, religion, philosophy, and personal belief are most emphatically NOT part of scientific rigor.

Quote:

---

But what worries me is with this focus on hypocrisy, 1) you do not appear to understand the words coming out of my keyboard, and 2) you appear intent on attacking me personally as a hypocrite rather than my positions on GW.

---

I have been trying to follow up on claims you made, I have been trying to discuss facts with you, and have put some time and effort into presented my own ideas. You are the one who keeps turning this personal by saying you don't need to have a discussion of any scientific rigor because all this is your personal belief system.

You see how that works? If you make it all about *you* rather than about discussion the details of the science and the economics, it becomes all about you. Believe me, I'd MUCH rather discuss any of the issues we've touched on, but you're not letting me! You keep turning it back to you.

Things we could be talking about: Ruddiman's figures (they can be looked at and discussed even if you don't have the book in your hand), the details of your husband's 20% number, the exact process of sequestration, the earnings to be made or lost by climate change legislation, or your links to the temperature data.

I will even go to these links and read up, but at this point I'd need some assurance that I'd get a discussion in return, rather than a brush-off and a: "well, I may look into it later IF you're nice to me." Even if I disagree with what I find in those links. I need you to be able to see any disagreement with those links as scientific disagreement, rather than an attack on you.

And you may want to think about this: if this belief of yours is "religious, philosophical, subjective, based on personal values and experiences", is it even possible for someone to disagree with your stance in a way that won't feel to you like a personal attack?


-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

We don't have enough of a common vocabulary to engage in a lengthy debate, Mal. If we don't agree on the meaning of the words, "later," "skepticism," "speculation," "hypocrite," etc., what chance do we have to discuss what "climate change" and "science" means?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
I have tried and tried to have that factual discussion of Climate Change with you...

---

And I've tried and tried to say, "LATER, after I've read Ruddiman's book and have had some time to formulate the kind of rigorous defense you are looking for. THEN we can engage in the factual debate you want on a separate thread."

Apparently I have to jump into it on your command or I am a hypocrite.

Eh. Hypocrite I am.

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Things we could be talking about: Ruddiman's figures (they can be looked at and discussed even if you don't have the book in your hand),..

---

I can't talk about someone's "figures" just because some anonymous person posted those "figures" on the internet. That is not how I roll.

I have to read the original research, from the original source, and study its methodology, results, and discussion as intended by the author. All "figures" have to be understood in that context or else they don't have much meaning to me. Sorry, my training as a scientist.

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Things we could be talking about: Ruddiman's figures (they can be looked at and discussed even if you don't have the book in your hand),..

---

I can't talk about someone's "figures" just because some anonymous person posted those "figures" on the internet. That is not how I roll.

---

Huh. So now you're all scientific rigor. It does seem to come and go.

But this is another place you and I differ: I like to hear people expand on things they post. You know, to carry out a discussion. I can learn the context of the matter from what the person has to say, and at least get some of their point of view, even if they don't get all the details right. I can look things up myself if I have doubts. I'd wish you could have extended that kind of courtesy to me about Ruddiman--to at least hear me out, as I tried my best to hear you out--but I can see that's not your way.

I have made a resolution to never again walk away from a RWED discussion unless the other person is truly a waste of time (Rappy) which is the reason I've stuck with this, long after it became a beaten dead horse. I don't want to do the dramatic calling-it-quits thing, because I think we both are better than that.

I think you have great ideas, if only you'd dispassionately let them be discussed and debated. I'll be here whenever you want to pick it up again.


-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

"...intelligent design is the theory that a supernatural being took an active hand in the design of all life". Ah, thank you Magons for clarifying that. I thought it was about the "spark" thing, which is different. If I were to believe in a "god", the spark thing would work for me. If.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

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