Journal pudge's Journal: Scientists Are Idiots 18
From NewsHour last night: "Well, the scientific community has had a consensus that human beings were likely affecting the climate for about 10 years, but it's taken a while to convince the general public."
What? When something is "likely," according to "consensus," and you have trouble convincing the public?
Gee. Why do you think that might be? Maybe because people are not easily convinced of things that scientists are not convinced by, either?
Why should anyone be convinced, easily or otherwise, when the facts (as told to us by the IPCC) tell us that we don't know? Why should a scientist even be convinced, when it's the job of a scientist to be skeptical?
Which is, of course, why Gore has helped change the debate: he lied. He pretended the "debate is over." He removed the lack of certainty. He tells us that significant manmade global climate change is fact, rather than what the IPCC tells us, which is that it is merely likely.
It's a clear pattern: if you can't convince people based on the facts, you lie.
That's really why Gore got the Nobel, because he was instrumental in convincing people of something that the science doesn't show, that significant manmade global climate change is fact. He got the Nobel for lying to people.
Careful.... (Score:2)
~ a scientist.
Re: (Score:2)
Careful there Pudge... Claiming all scientists are idiots is making you seem like a raving knucklehead.
~ a scientist.
I think my clear intent, here and in the context of other posts I've made and songs I've sung [pudge.net], is not that "all scientists are idiots" in the sense that they are dumb compared to anyone else. It's that they are no smarter than anyone else.
Sure, not every scientist makes the same dumb errors that Oppenheimer makes. But everyone makes dumb errors. Everyone is clueless. We treat scientists like they have better judgment or wisdom, and they do not. Or like they are experts -- or even moderately adequate t [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I am not advocating any special treatment for scientists, I do suggest that we at least listen and consider the input that scientists have, even when that input may not jive with what we hold to be true.
Sure, where that input is backed up by actual scientific experimentation and so on. Otherwise, what they say carries no more weight than what anyone else says.
It is understanding how to ask questions and seek answers that makes input from scientifically trained individuals so valuable.
Eh. That training is rarely found among scientists, in my experience, and it is just as commonly found among people who aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is also why we rely on the scientific community to ensure that scientific rigor is employed. So, when you talk to a classically trained scientist, you are talking to a community.
Eh. That training is rarely found among scientists, in my experience, and it is just as commonly found among people who aren't.
I don't know what scientists you have exp
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, where that input is backed up by actual scientific experimentation and so on. Otherwise, what they say carries no more weight than what anyone else says.
Which is also why we rely on the scientific community to ensure that scientific rigor is employed.
Who is this "we"?
So, when you talk to a classically trained scientist, you are talking to a community.
No, I most certainly am not.
Eh. That training is rarely found among scientists, in my experience, and it is just as commonly found among people who aren't.
I don't know what scientists you have experience with... but most scientists I know are capable of rigorous critical thought and application of that thought to real world problems.
Not to any greater extent than non-scientists, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists. Simple as that. The way that the scientific method is taught, we rely on each other to anonymously evaluate our colleagues work, criticize bad work and promote good work.
No, I most certainly am not.
Why, yes.... you *are*.
Not to any greater extent than non-scientists, of course.
You are not helping whatever cause you are championing here.... Look, I am not saying that scientists are any better than anyone else. All I am saying is that they *tend* to be better at applying impar
Re: (Score:2)
Who is this "we"?
Scientists. Simple as that.
So scientists rely on other scientists. Good for you. What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
No, I most certainly am not.
Why, yes.... you *are*.
False. You can keep saying that, but it's not true. In some cases it's true, in some it's not; and -- as a man of science you know this, of course -- an unqualified statment that is false sometimes is, simply, false.
Not to any greater extent than non-scientists, of course.
You are not helping whatever cause you are championing here....
False.
All I am saying is that [scientists] *tend* to be better at applying impartial, critical analysis to situations than those who are not trained to work according to the scientific method.
That statement is entirely devoid of any factual basis, and unsupportable even by basic logic or reasoning. So much for eliminating bias, huh? That statement is based on not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not about needing or wanting to be expert in fields outside of our own areas of study.
Not quite, but it is similar: it is claiming for yourself something that is not unique to science. Indeed and in fact, it is explicitly NOT from science.
Rather, the scientific method, when it is when invoked in any field of study by those trained to think and work within it, allows for a method to reduce all subjectivism and arrive at objective positions solidified by evidence, testing and logic.
Right. And two points: many "classically trained" scientists are extremely poor at this, and many non-scientists are extremely good at it. This has nothing to do with science or training in science. If it has to do with training in anything, it is training in philosophy.
This scientific method is the absolute best way of determining what is veracity because personal opinion does not factor in to an approach to analysis that is difficult and demanding of high standards of evidence and ethical conduct.
Well, putting aside "absolute best way" (I disagree, since the scientific method
Re: (Score:1)
It's not the scientists, per se. (Score:1)
But the real problem occurs when newspapers and politicians THEN use statements like the one about consensus for their own personal ends. Don't blame the scientists - most reported "science" in the news has very little to do with what the scienti
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at the original statement. A consensus of scientists deem it likely. Well, there's nothing wrong with that! I've looked at much of the evidence; while I don't agree with the consensus, I can see why individual scientists draw the conclusions they do.
Sure. But what's stupid is when scientists assume that the public should come to the same conclusions they do. They pretend we have some sort of obligation to go along with what they think.
We have no such obligation: logically, intellectually, practically, morally, legally, or in any other way.
As noted in the previous reply above, I am not really using this as a means to indict all scientists about this particular issue. I am just saying scientists are no better or worse than anyone else. And Oppenheim
Brainwashed (Score:2)
I think the main reason global warming is becoming "consensus" (among some people) is that it was taught as fact in schools as early as the 1980's.
Which really gives the lie to the whole "we can't convince the public" sob story. Why was it in my elementary school science textbooks, then? Unfortunately, a lot of the unwashed masses are convinced. I think they must just be scared that certain people who aren't so ignorant and gullible aren't convinced, some of whom have credentials to cast doubt on their
Re: (Score:2)
the totalitarian reforms they want to implement to "solve" the "problem."
The quote I added was from the same guy who said that the UN would exercise veto power over the U.S. government [slashdot.org]. An actual UN official said something similar: emissions cuts should be forced on the U.S. [slashdot.org].
"Totalitarian" is accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, how mixed up some people are today. There are those in the UN and "international community" that absolutely refuse to ever actually do anything against people we KNOW have (and are) doing/done horrible things to others, like Ol' Kim in North Korea, or Saddam. Even when they do sanctions many whine tha
Re: (Score:2)
There are those in the UN and "international community" that absolutely refuse to ever actually do anything against people we KNOW have (and are) doing/done horrible things to others, like Ol' Kim in North Korea, or Saddam. Even when they do sanctions many whine that it's wrong.
But the US won't cut carbon emissions?!?! Damn their constitution and rights! We'll force them!
How they would ever enact said force is a mystery.
Well, remember UN Resolution 687: it said the UN would use force if Iraq didn't comply. And we know how that worked out!
That is the most important lesson of Iraq: do not ever entrust such things to the UN.