Search

 6 of 8 « First Prev 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Science isn’t truth
 Posted: 07 August 2017 04:10 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]
Jr. Member
Total Posts:  78
Joined  2017-08-06

Science IS the search for truth, it is just never-ending.  Any fact can face upheaval if it evidence leads somewhere else.  It’s like peeling la piece of fruit one millimeter at a time, while predicting what’s at the center, with each layer peeled you learn a little more and adjust your prediction accordingly.  With something like an you may figure out what’s inside long before you reach the center, whereas with a peach you would have to get all the way to the pit to figure it out, because the result was so unexpected.

Signature

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Richard Feynman

 Profile

 Posted: 07 August 2017 06:33 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  7847
Joined  2009-02-26
WaylonCash - 07 August 2017 04:10 PM

Science IS the search for truth, it is just never-ending.  Any fact can face upheaval if it evidence leads somewhere else.  It’s like peeling la piece of fruit one millimeter at a time, while predicting what’s at the center, with each layer peeled you learn a little more and adjust your prediction accordingly.  With something like an you may figure out what’s inside long before you reach the center, whereas with a peach you would have to get all the way to the pit to figure it out, because the result was so unexpected.

I agree with most of that.
But along the way of our inquiry we may run across some things that are true, either as constant or relativistic phenomena
The point I am trying to make is that there is no single Truth which explains all values and functions of the universe. The closest we can come to a single truth is the generality of Cause and Effect, with its subsets of Potential, QM, GR, Gravity, a kind of hierarchical ordering of natural phenomena.

Each value and function contains it’s own relative truth.  When we discover a common denominator of all functions, we call them universal constants, or universal truths, because everything in the universe is subject to that certain universal aspect. IMO. Potential is such a common denominator of all conceivable universal values and functions.  Potential (a latent ability which may become expressed in reality).

But what holds true in our gross physical expressed world, may not necessarily be true at the very subtlest levels. Things can not be measured as true or false or even as dualities, but become probabilistic, some of which we can demonstrate by experiment.

[ Edited: 07 August 2017 06:42 PM by Write4U ]
Signature

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

 Profile

 Posted: 07 August 2017 07:24 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]
Member
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24

This is funny in a pathetic way. The most active three bullies in the canal of dubious characters posting here have accused me of climate change denial and of being anti-atheist. I have challenged them to come up with posts to support their accusations. None have managed to so. WHO IS BEING DISHONEST?
Time and time again I have been denigrated for holding views that these bully-boys oppose without these same bully-boys justifying their accusations. Lausten in one thread wants us to take a pledge of honesty yet fails to live up to the criteria he asks others to meet. WHO ARE THE FRAUDS?
Now they start a campaign against the moderator attempting to calm them. It isn’t about “politically correct” or protecting “snowflakes”. It is about recognizing a group of bullies who have taken over these forums and vent their bile at anyone who doesn’t bow to their rule. It isn’t just me, it is newcomers and other members too - who have made reasonableness introductory comments in the forums only to be met with bile from the cabal. And it has been to other members too.
This kind of secular behavior of turning upon one another rather than finding common ground has been criticised by some secular commentators (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dogmadebate/2017/06/reasonably-controversial-regressive-left-killing-atheist-movement/, https://noreligionrequired.com/tag/the-atheist-movement/). Furthermore, the aggressive and dishonest tactics adopted by these bullies seems counter to the intent of CFI (There must be a system that can bring together all the members of the “reality-based” community. Whether we identify as atheists, freethinkers, humanists, secularists, or skeptics, we all share basic values rooted in inquiry, naturalism, and the scientific method—values that urgently need to be demonstrated and advanced in the broader culture.). They are certainly not bringing anyone together and seem to be driving people away. Indeed, DougC’s comments seem to confirm that sentiment….

DougC - 03 August 2017 10:37 AM

Welcome to the real world, too bad your stay here will likely be fleeting.

DougC - 07 August 2017 09:37 AM

there are ways to effectively shut down those who are attempting to defraud us of our very future in their interests by other means that directly stating what they are.

One new user who wrote a reasonable post asking for enlightenment in this thread was greeted with this:

Lausten - 22 November 2016 03:40 PM

Sounds like you’ve listened to a few talks and not done much else.

. It was their last post.
Another poster asked a perfectly reasonable question in this thread and was greeted by a trail of undeserved derogatory comments simply because other members “suspected” the poster had ulterior motives. We could all have learned something from respectful discussion. Opportunity lost.
This post by DarronS offers a similar criticism. These represent just the tip of an iceberg of nasty posts by a handful of individuals who seem to have pretty much run everyone else out of any reasonable discussion.
The forums as they stand at the moment should be an embarrassment to CFI and certainly not a face of secularism that they would want to show to the world. If the CFI organisers have no interest in supporting informative forums focussing on CFI priorities and interests, they should seriously consider closing them down to avoid further embarrassment and damage to the secular cause. I’m disgusted!

 Profile

 Posted: 07 August 2017 07:47 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  1693
Joined  2016-12-24
JohnH - 07 August 2017 07:24 PM

Now they start a campaign against the moderator attempting to calm them.

There’s some malicious creativity in action right there buddy.

Please pray tell, what “campaign against the moderator” doest thou speak of?  Offer up a quote let’s look at it.

 Profile

 Posted: 07 August 2017 09:02 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  1693
Joined  2016-12-24
JohnH - 07 August 2017 07:24 PM

This is funny in a pathetic way. The most active three bullies in the canal of dubious characters {Well for one so offended at needless rudeness and insulting others, you sure seem to be pretty good at it yourself?  Why is that?  Had a lot of practice?  That right wing double standard perhaps?} posting here have accused me of climate change denial and of being anti-atheist.{not me, I myself am impressed with some of your humanistic utterances.  How you can be such an a%& when it comes to climate science fascinates me to no end.} I have challenged them to come up with posts to support their accusations.

None have managed to so. WHO IS BEING DISHONEST?
{Who’s kidding whom.  You deliberately ignore every challenge and side step the complaints that have been spelled out and the explanations offered, who’s being dishonest?  Then you respond in riddles and rants, rather than focusing on the actual issue and its facts.}

Time and time again I have been denigrated for holding views that these bully-boys oppose without these same bully-boys justifying their accusations. Lausten in one thread wants us to take a pledge of honesty yet fails to live up to the criteria he asks others to meet. WHO ARE THE FRAUDS? {produce some examples!}
Now they start a campaign against the moderator attempting to calm them.  {nonsense}

It isn’t about “politically correct” {you call demanding honesty when representing the known science “politically correct” as though it were a curse} or protecting “snowflakes”. {What a nasty piece of work you are.  You characterize concern over AGW as “protecting snowflakes.” }

It is about recognizing a group of bullies who have taken over these forums and vent their bile at anyone who doesn’t bow to their rule. It isn’t just me, it is newcomers and other members too - who have made reasonableness introductory comments in the forums only to be met with bile from the cabal.

And it has been to other members too.
This kind of secular behavior of turning upon one another rather than finding common ground has been criticised by some secular commentators (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dogmadebate/2017/06/reasonably-controversial-regressive-left-killing-atheist-movement/, https://noreligionrequired.com/tag/the-atheist-movement/). Furthermore, the aggressive and dishonest tactics adopted by these bullies seems counter to the intent of CFI (There must be a system that can bring together all the members of the “reality-based” community. Whether we identify as atheists, freethinkers, humanists, secularists, or skeptics, we all share basic values rooted in inquiry, naturalism, and the scientific method—values that urgently need to be demonstrated and advanced in the broader culture.). They are certainly not bringing anyone together and seem to be driving people away. Indeed, DougC’s comments seem to confirm that sentiment….

DougC - 03 August 2017 10:37 AM

Welcome to the real world, too bad your stay here will likely be fleeting.

DougC - 07 August 2017 09:37 AM

there are ways to effectively shut down those who are attempting to defraud us of our very future in their interests by other means that directly stating what they are.

One new user who wrote a reasonable post asking for enlightenment in this thread was greeted with this:

Lausten - 22 November 2016 03:40 PM

Sounds like you’ve listened to a few talks and not done much else.

. It was their last post.
{is there a reason you disregard the rest of his comment?}

Lausten - 22 November 2016 03:40 PM

Sounds like you’ve listened to a few talks and not done much else. Atheism is a belief claim, Agnosticism is a knowledge claim. Science cannot make a knowledge claim with 100% accuracy, therefore, it is agnostic on everything. It is always contingent on new data. If you want to say you are so certain that for all practical purposes, it’s true, that is perfectly fine with me. It is perfectly useful in normal conversation. The thing is, with this particular truth claim, you have a lot of people betting their life on it, so do you really want to get into that? It’s up to you.

Another poster asked a perfectly reasonable question in this thread and was greeted by a trail of undeserved derogatory comments simply because other members “suspected” the poster had ulterior motives. We could all have learned something from respectful discussion.

Don’t buy it.  It was a ridicule question and set up.  If the guy were actually sincerely interested in those topics he’s be over at YouTube looking up relevant videos and documentaries - not posing such an outlandish set of answers from a causal discussion board.  Perhaps we ought retain a bit of humor, ask an outlandish question, don’t be offended with an outlandish first response.  If you want to be taken seriously, come back and define what you want a bit better.  Give and take, takes both sides.

question - 24 March 2017 01:17 PM

I am a scientist myself. Trying to figure out what’s hypothesis and what’s theory.
I feel any plausible theory has to be substantiated by obervations. My questions regard observations on protein.

Maybe somebody can be of help. For now I don’t have an answer to any of the questions I want to ask.
Here we go.

Where in the non-living nature can we observe:
Protein synthesis?
Protein?
Protein consisting of laevorotary amino acids only?
Biologically functioning protein?
Amino acids/peptides in quantities sufficient to build protein?
Places containing laevorotary amino acids/peptides only?
The availability of all amino acids necessary for life?

Where in the non-living nature can we dump amino acids/peptides and show their synthesis to protein?

Edit: Addition: Where on today’s Earth can we observe these things?

Opportunity lost.
This post by DarronS offers a similar criticism {Simpler to what???  Darron didn’t insult the OP, he described his experience here at CFI.  Why can’t you handle that.  Why does everyone have to bend over for your biases?  Your entire thing is so predictable, always running off with your sense of indignation rather than sticking to the actually issues and facts at hand.  Then you wonder why you are viewed with such deep cynicism.  hahaha, aren’t you the professional.}.

These represent just the tip of an iceberg of nasty posts by a handful of individuals who seem to have pretty much run everyone else out of any reasonable discussion.

The forums as they stand at the moment should be an embarrassment to CFI and certainly not a face of secularism that they would want to show to the world. If the CFI organisers have no interest in supporting informative forums focussing on CFI priorities and interests, they should seriously consider closing them down to avoid further embarrassment and damage to the secular cause. I’m disgusted!
{Such a rant.  Thought this was about Science and Truth.  Well fyi we are disgusted in the dishonest your words betray!}

 Profile

 Posted: 07 August 2017 09:19 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  1693
Joined  2016-12-24
 Profile

 Posted: 07 August 2017 11:21 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24
WaylonCash - 07 August 2017 04:10 PM

Science IS the search for truth, it is just never-ending.  Any fact can face upheaval if it evidence leads somewhere else.  It’s like peeling la piece of fruit one millimeter at a time, while predicting what’s at the center, with each layer peeled you learn a little more and adjust your prediction accordingly.  With something like an you may figure out what’s inside long before you reach the center, whereas with a peach you would have to get all the way to the pit to figure it out, because the result was so unexpected.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge not truth, truths are absolute and once established are not altered.

Knowledge on the other hand can constantly be added to and adjusted which is exactly what science does and why it is so effective in describing natural phenomena.

This is why we have so much confidence that things like human forced climate change are in fact happening. Because science has accumulated a vast amount of knowledge on the subject that is entirely consistent with the scientific method. The evidence has been tested and retested and is support by multiple fields including some of the most sound like quantum mechanics.

This is probably why someone who just started a thread that entirely ignored climate science in relation to past changes during the recent glacial and inter-glacial periods is now attacking the validity of science itself.

Like other climate change deniers he is attempting to establish an unchallengeable “truth” that climate change is not a threat or if it is it’s nothing we’re responsible for therefore not something we can alter.

This is why climate change denial is not science, it is seeking absolute “truths”... even if they are almost completely unsupported by knowledge.

 Profile

 Posted: 08 August 2017 12:23 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24

I also think this fully explains why no amount of knowledge has budged climate change deniers both here and everywhere else.

They aren’t interested in the slightest in knowledge, they are entirely attempting to create their own truth in regards to fossil fuels, the central role that carbon dioxide plays in moderating the global heat budget and the resulting climate change.

This is likely why JohnH created the this thread where he completely ignores the scientific knowledge on the subject;

then started a thread that discounts science itself because it not based on his belief system that produces his truth.

The same applies to Mike Yohe, no amount of knowledge affects him in the slightest in regards to fossil fuels, carbon dioxide and global warming. He goes right back to where he started years ago with claiming the current climate change we’re clearly seeing is the result of volcanoes or anything else but fossil fuels and carbon dioxide.

This is their truth, it doesn’t require evidence, knowledge or even critical thinking skills. Just faith in their truth. It’s circular thinking that allows no input of knowledge, and is powered entirely by the hundreds of millions of dollars provided from the fossil fuel sector itself.

It is almost completely meaningless in scientific terms.

This thread actually belongs in the philosophy sub-forum at best or even the religious forum.

 Profile

 Posted: 08 August 2017 06:52 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]
Moderator
Total Posts:  7824
Joined  2007-03-02
Write4U - 07 August 2017 06:33 PM
WaylonCash - 07 August 2017 04:10 PM

Science IS the search for truth, it is just never-ending.  Any fact can face upheaval if it evidence leads somewhere else.  It’s like peeling la piece of fruit one millimeter at a time, while predicting what’s at the center, with each layer peeled you learn a little more and adjust your prediction accordingly.  With something like an you may figure out what’s inside long before you reach the center, whereas with a peach you would have to get all the way to the pit to figure it out, because the result was so unexpected.

I agree with most of that.
But along the way of our inquiry we may run across some things that are true, either as constant or relativistic phenomena
The point I am trying to make is that there is no single Truth which explains all values and functions of the universe. The closest we can come to a single truth is the generality of Cause and Effect, with its subsets of Potential, QM, GR, Gravity, a kind of hierarchical ordering of natural phenomena.

Each value and function contains it’s own relative truth.  When we discover a common denominator of all functions, we call them universal constants, or universal truths, because everything in the universe is subject to that certain universal aspect. IMO. Potential is such a common denominator of all conceivable universal values and functions.  Potential (a latent ability which may become expressed in reality).

But what holds true in our gross physical expressed world, may not necessarily be true at the very subtlest levels. Things can not be measured as true or false or even as dualities, but become probabilistic, some of which we can demonstrate by experiment.

I also agree with most of that.  Science is the search for truth and when we find evidence for something we conclude that is the answer, but the answer is subject to updating when find the prior results were wrong.  Thus, science isn’t necessarily truth, but it is facts as we currently know them which is subject to updating with new information.  For example, some scientists and doctors use to doubt germ theory because they could not see evidence for that theory, but new technology was developed, leading to further research with evidence, and now it is a known fact that germs exist and some cause illness, which doctors and scientists now accept.  We once went gaga over antibacterial soap (just a few years ago), thinking it was good, but now we know it also kills the good bacteria that we need to survive.  With new information and knowledge, we update the current knowledge and information we have, changing what we think we know is true.

Signature

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

 Profile

 Posted: 08 August 2017 08:30 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]
Member
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24
Mriana - 08 August 2017 06:52 AM
Write4U - 07 August 2017 06:33 PM
WaylonCash - 07 August 2017 04:10 PM

Science IS the search for truth, it is just never-ending.  Any fact can face upheaval if it evidence leads somewhere else.  It’s like peeling la piece of fruit one millimeter at a time, while predicting what’s at the center, with each layer peeled you learn a little more and adjust your prediction accordingly.  With something like an you may figure out what’s inside long before you reach the center, whereas with a peach you would have to get all the way to the pit to figure it out, because the result was so unexpected.

I agree with most of that.
But along the way of our inquiry we may run across some things that are true, either as constant or relativistic phenomena
The point I am trying to make is that there is no single Truth which explains all values and functions of the universe. ......
Each value and function contains it’s own relative truth.  Potential (a latent ability which may become expressed in reality)......
But what holds true in our gross physical expressed world, may not necessarily be true at the very subtlest levels.

I also agree with most of that.  Science is the search for truth and when we find evidence for something we conclude that is the answer, but the answer is subject to updating when find the prior results were wrong.  Thus, science isn’t necessarily truth, but it is facts as we currently know them which is subject to updating with new information.  For example, some scientists and doctors use to doubt germ theory because they could not see evidence for that theory, but new technology was developed, leading to further research with evidence, and now it is a known fact that germs exist and some cause illness, which doctors and scientists now accept.  We once went gaga over antibacterial soap (just a few years ago), thinking it was good, but now we know it also kills the good bacteria that we need to survive.  With new information and knowledge, we update the current knowledge and information we have, changing what we think we know is true.

I introduced this thread because a post in another thread reminded me of a constant theme I hear in the theist/atheist debate over “universal truth” where science is often held up as failing in its relationship to such truths. Unfortunately, what could have been a useful debate was turned into an attack on me apparently based upon the false assumption that I was using the premise to attack climate change (I do NOT deny climate change or AGW - and no-one has provided any indication of a post that leads them to believe as they do. I wish they would, so that I can clarify any misunderstanding).
The best supported scientific method requires that a prediction be made and then that prediction be tested. Popper pointed out that falsifying a prediction had the highest information content - certainty, or truth. No other method could reach such high levels of certainty or truth. Thus we can only be certain of what is not true. He also suggested that a strong but lesser level of certainty arose when observations confirmed predictions that were unexpected based upon prevalent theories. Such as the by-products of combustion being heavier than the uncombusted raw material challenging the phlogiston theory of combustion, or the bending of light by gravity that Einstein correctly predicted would be twice as much as predicted by Newtonian physics. Not everyone agrees with Popper’s restrictive prescription for science (e.g. Feyeraband) but his basic premise of uncertainty is not challenged.
The most useful scientific approximation to any “universal truth” is probably the Standard Model in physics. However, physicists accept that, along with all current theories, it falls far short of a satisfactory theory of reality, citing the incompatibility of General Relativity and Quantum Theories and the failure to explain or calculate the values of fundamental constants.
Fortunately, within these mires of uncertainty, we find ourselves able to make reliable and sometimes novel predictions that form the basis of an orderly existence. They aren’t fundamental truths as religion often seems to demand, but they are sufficient to conduct an orderly life and even provide opportunities for a better life if we apply them appropriately. As with many things religious, universal truth is not a necessity although in this case it may be a lofty yet unreachable goal worthy of our pursuit.

[ Edited: 08 August 2017 08:37 AM by JohnH ]
 Profile

 Posted: 08 August 2017 08:59 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]
Moderator
Total Posts:  7824
Joined  2007-03-02
JohnH - 08 August 2017 08:30 AM
Mriana - 08 August 2017 06:52 AM
Write4U - 07 August 2017 06:33 PM
WaylonCash - 07 August 2017 04:10 PM

Science IS the search for truth, it is just never-ending.  Any fact can face upheaval if it evidence leads somewhere else.  It’s like peeling la piece of fruit one millimeter at a time, while predicting what’s at the center, with each layer peeled you learn a little more and adjust your prediction accordingly.  With something like an you may figure out what’s inside long before you reach the center, whereas with a peach you would have to get all the way to the pit to figure it out, because the result was so unexpected.

I agree with most of that.
But along the way of our inquiry we may run across some things that are true, either as constant or relativistic phenomena
The point I am trying to make is that there is no single Truth which explains all values and functions of the universe. ......
Each value and function contains it’s own relative truth.  Potential (a latent ability which may become expressed in reality)......
But what holds true in our gross physical expressed world, may not necessarily be true at the very subtlest levels.

I also agree with most of that.  Science is the search for truth and when we find evidence for something we conclude that is the answer, but the answer is subject to updating when find the prior results were wrong.  Thus, science isn’t necessarily truth, but it is facts as we currently know them which is subject to updating with new information.  For example, some scientists and doctors use to doubt germ theory because they could not see evidence for that theory, but new technology was developed, leading to further research with evidence, and now it is a known fact that germs exist and some cause illness, which doctors and scientists now accept.  We once went gaga over antibacterial soap (just a few years ago), thinking it was good, but now we know it also kills the good bacteria that we need to survive.  With new information and knowledge, we update the current knowledge and information we have, changing what we think we know is true.

I introduced this thread because a post in another thread reminded me of a constant theme I hear in the theist/atheist debate over “universal truth” where science is often held up as failing in its relationship to such truths. Unfortunately, what could have been a useful debate was turned into an attack on me apparently based upon the false assumption that I was using the premise to attack climate change (I do NOT deny climate change or AGW - and no-one has provided any indication of a post that leads them to believe as they do. I wish they would, so that I can clarify any misunderstanding).
The best supported scientific method requires that a prediction be made and then that prediction be tested. Popper pointed out that falsifying a prediction had the highest information content - certainty, or truth. No other method could reach such high levels of certainty or truth. Thus we can only be certain of what is not true. He also suggested that a strong but lesser level of certainty arose when observations confirmed predictions that were unexpected based upon prevalent theories. Such as the by-products of combustion being heavier than the uncombusted raw material challenging the phlogiston theory of combustion, or the bending of light by gravity that Einstein correctly predicted would be twice as much as predicted by Newtonian physics. Not everyone agrees with Popper’s restrictive prescription for science (e.g. Feyeraband) but his basic premise of uncertainty is not challenged.
The most useful scientific approximation to any “universal truth” is probably the Standard Model in physics. However, physicists accept that, along with all current theories, it falls far short of a satisfactory theory of reality, citing the incompatibility of General Relativity and Quantum Theories and the failure to explain or calculate the values of fundamental constants.
Fortunately, within these mires of uncertainty, we find ourselves able to make reliable and sometimes novel predictions that form the basis of an orderly existence. They aren’t fundamental truths as religion often seems to demand, but they are sufficient to conduct an orderly life and even provide opportunities for a better life if we apply them appropriately. As with many things religious, universal truth is not a necessity although in this case it may be a lofty yet unreachable goal worthy of our pursuit.

I don’t disagree with any of this.  I’m not sure what the dispute is or why anyone is arguing or would argue what you just said.

Signature

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

 Profile

 Posted: 08 August 2017 10:22 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  4216
Joined  2009-10-21
JohnH - 07 August 2017 07:24 PM

Lausten in one thread wants us to take a pledge of honesty yet fails to live up to the criteria he asks others to meet. WHO ARE THE FRAUDS?

I would gladly discuss the details of the pledge. It is taking plenty heat beyond your comment here. The person owning the site has done some dishonest things and is not owning up to them. The pledge itself is pretty simple and based on principles that are easily understandable. Likewise, they are debatable. I put things up for discussion. If that is what you want, then discuss, don’t refer to me in a different thread on a different topic.

 Profile

 Posted: 08 August 2017 10:32 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  4216
Joined  2009-10-21

chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm I came across this by Asimov and was thinking of starting a new thread here.

But it fits to introduce it now. What I see you doing JohnH is not EXACTLY this, but it’s close enough and it’s what regular forum skeptics everywhere are constantly watching out for. If you let a conversation go on for a long time with one person saying they aren’t sure or don’t think something is proven, we often find out the person is not interested in truth. They don’t want a 99% certainty, they want total knowing that only exists in the fantasies of someone who climbs mountains looking for gurus. They don’t exist. So, yeah, I chase them away. Bring something to party, be open to accepting new ideas, or go away.

Here’s a key point from the essay. It’s a coincidence that the person is named “John”.

My answer to him was, “John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that “right” and “wrong” are absolute; that everything that isn’t perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.

 Profile

 Posted: 08 August 2017 10:40 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  4216
Joined  2009-10-21
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 07 August 2017 09:19 PM

Guess I’ve joined the cabal that sites references, understands data, and doesn’t ask questions that are answered in a million places on the internet, like “what about the little ice age”? Do I get a cool hat? Or maybe at least a pin so other members can recognize me?

 Profile

 Posted: 08 August 2017 10:53 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24

Exactly, I remember readying about Asimov’s “Relativity of Wrong” as a child. All knowledge is relative and science itself is based on this principle.

Seeking absolute truths is the role of religion or philosophy.

Right now the critical issue we all face with global warming and the resulting catastrophic climate change is those who describe themselves as “skeptics” - I prefer the term applied to them by James Hansen, contrarians - is they are demanding that we understand all elements of human forced climate change absolutely before we begin any actions to deal with it. They constantly attack the very well supported science because it is not on the level of absolute religious truths.

Our scientific understanding of human forced climate change will never reach that level, no area of science will. That is not what science is designed to do or seeks to do.

What it does do is provide a very high degree of confidence that human activity has in fact increased atmospheric levels of CO2 from about 280 ppm to over 400 ppm. And the evidence is this is already introducing an incredible amount of extra heat into the Earths’ ocean-atmosphere system, most of it going into the oceans which have 1,000 times the thermal capacity of the atmosphere. This is affecting climate across the planet.

Are there gaps in our knowledge base on this issue?

Certainly there are.

On Asimov’s relativity of wrong scale how does scientific method based examination of the data compare to the fossil fuel sector driven disinformation campaign that claims there is no real scientific validity to human forced climate change.

There is no comparison at all, the confidence in the science of human forced climate change is over 97% looking at the best studies.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Once again, science is not seeking absolute truths in anything, it is seeking the highest confidence knowledge base. And when it comes to human forced climate change the confidence is approaching 100% for to 0% against. It will never reach 100% because science always leaves room for doubt.

People who are effectively being to paid to believe the opposite of the well supported science and constantly work to undermine it leave no room at all for doubt in their positions.

Which means they are not engaged in science.

 Profile

 6 of 8 « First Prev 4 5 6 7 8 Next