Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  DrZarkov99 1 month, 1 week ago
    I'm reminded of an exchange with my PhD brother in law, who is terribly progressive. He explained why he no longer wanted to discuss politics with me because I was "unfair," insisting on real facts and logical discourse.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ProfChuck 1 month, 1 week ago
      PhD? In what discipline? I have a double PhD in Astrophysics and Radio Astronomy and I always insist on real facts and logical discourse. Anything else is mysticism. What did he get his PhD in? Underwater basket weaving?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  DrZarkov99 1 month, 1 week ago
        Actually, his PhD is in solid state physics, and he was quite respected in laser optics and infrared jamming technology. He, like many educated liberals, seems to be able to compartmentalize his scientific side dealing in facts, principles, and precise data, from his social science and political touchy feely side.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ProfChuck 1 month, 1 week ago
          I have always held that "social science" is a contradiction in terms."
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
            Social science is valid, and, in fact, is more scientific than physics.

            "In sociology, students at all levels are presented with some discussion about whether and how sociology is a science. Physics – especially Newtonian physics – is taken as a kind of standard against which sociology is measured. Actually, a scientific investigation of college textbooks revealed that physics education is deficient in presenting students with the methods and limits of experiment and theory.

            "Sir Anthony Giddens’s international standard undergraduate textbook, Sociology, has an entire chapter (number 20) on Research Methods with three explicit discussions of experiment. It begins with two discussions of sociology as a science (pp 7-8; and 12-14).

            "Moreover, in sociology, we enjoy some self-criticism in examining the historical development of our field, from Comte (I prefer Spencer), Weber, Durkheim, and Marx, through to Parsons, Merton, and your choice of pop stars of the current generation. Physics students do not understand their science as a historical development. As Kuhn pointed out fifty years ago, physics is presented whole and complete, without development. No wonder they are surprised by a new explanation of a previously unperceived fact." --
            http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 1 month, 1 week ago
              The social sciences are notorious for their ideological non-science, which has been well documented and even illustrated with spoofs relying on their own lack of rational standards and which demonstrate the point. It is good that some try and do good work, but social science has a terrible reputation and even at its best has a long way to go to reach the stature of physics and its accomplishments.

              That some physicists promote bizarre speculations in the name of science is also true, but it isn't true that "social science is more scientific than physics" and that physics is "presented whole and complete, without development". The social sciences have long been defensive in comparison to the 'hard' sciences like physics and that assertion from Giddens is an example.

              The discussion of "science" you quoted from Giddens emphasizes ideological rationalists, starting with the notorious Comte. Whatever methods he later describes (you don't say which edition of the book that appears in as Chapter 20) that history is no argument that sociology is in fact scientific.

              Physics texts do describe historical development along with completed theories on different aspects of the subject. It can properly do that because physics has spectacularly successful comprehensive theories in a way that the social sciences do not.

              Physics books properly do not include Kuhn because his half century old attempt to replace philosophy of science with the sociology of scientists is not relevant to understanding physics. Everyone is routinely taught how \breakthroughs have expanded knowledge, beginning with the most elementary mechanics such as Galileo's inclined plane and pendulums, but it is destructive to misconstrue that as physics being a succession of exploded fallacies.

              As we have discussed before, however, there is inadequate discussion in the typical text books of how discoveries in physics were made and reasoned. Major experiments are described or summarized, with names and dates given, when major principles are introduced, but not the thought processes that led to them. How to do it is explained or illustrated in more advanced courses in engineering or physics (especially graduate work), but it isn't enough for understanding how knowledge of physics has historically and conceptually grown to become what it is and to conceptually explain its current level of understanding, with much of it left as a body of equations and methods for solving problems.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 1 month, 1 week ago
                Mike, what edition of Giddens' book are you referring to? The chapter organizations differ so it's hard to know what you are referring to as "Chapter 20" on scientific method.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
    Actually, I'm going to fundamentally disagree with the very first notion put forth by the author: that the individual does not in fact have the right to an opinion. An opinion is nothing more than an hypothesis seeking confirmation through approbation. It may not be logically based on tested facts, but it is the basis for further exploration of any topic. It is the fundamental expression of thought. To argue that one does not have a "right" to opinion based on one's observation/supposition is ludicrous: does one only have the right opinion when given the okay by someone else? If so, we run into a chicken and egg scenario.

    Now I am not equating the existence of an opinion with justification of opinion. I am merely saying that I find the assertion that there exists no fundamental right to the products of one's own mind not only unfounded, but patently ridiculous.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 1 week ago
      That criticism of the book is patently ridiculous. You missed the whole point.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
        It was my opinion. ;)

        If one can not offer one's criticism of a book as the author claims, one enters into a circular argument state, for the author's opinion then becomes no more valid than my own!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 month, 1 week ago
          This is the fallacy of equivocation the author described.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -1
            Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
            From the blog:

            "Just as you first must achieve something worthy of boasting, so, too, is the “right” to an opinion earned by correctly identifying facts and then explaining them rationally."

            The author asserts that one may only boast after one has achieved something, conflating the act with the justification for the act. This is factually inaccurate, as the ability to do something is not the same as being justified or substantiated in such an action. Justification is a property of comparison between one thing and another, but relies on the things to be there in the first place! It's logically and literally absurd to say that only in justification may the object exist. Justification is a test to see if the object exists, but does not prohibit the postulation of the object in the first place. That a doctoral candidate would make such a simple, rudimentary, and fundamental misstep as that is quite pivotal to me.

            The other problem with this statement is the assertion that opinion is "earned" through approbation from another opinion. If one can only become an authority after earning such from another such authority, from whence originates authority at all? It's a circular argument - again logically absurd.

            If you want to lend your opinion to the author thinking it substantiates him, you make my point. I'm just going to move on. There is literally nothing to see here.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 1 month, 1 week ago
              You stated: "I'm going to fundamentally disagree with the very first notion put forth by the author: that the individual does not in fact have the right to an opinion" and "I find the assertion that there exists no fundamental right to the products of one's own mind not only founded, but patently ridiculous."

              The author did not say that. No one said that. You have misrepresented the 'very first notion put forth by the author'. You missed the whole point of the discussion explicitly distinguishing between political rights and logical thought. That makes your own criticism false.

              You then wrote: "If one can not offer one's criticism of a book as the author claims, one enters into a circular argument state, for the author's opinion then becomes no more valid than my own!".

              No one said that you can't "offer" a criticism. Your criticism was false and irrelevant,f or the reason given. Claiming, in response to that, a right to offer a criticism you insinuate is being denied is the very equivocation that the author exposes in his description of the "right to an opinion" fallacy. Your "criticism" was factually incorrect. You misrepresented him and then did exactly what he described and explained as the fallacy. He made no "circular argument".

              You don't acknowledge your error and wander off into another rationalistic excursion with bogus accusations of circular arguments. And you reveal why: You want to be taken seriously in your mystical "postulation of the object", i.e.a euphemism for the supernatural, as you have demanded many time before.

              You won''t stick to the subject of Mike's thread and what the author in fact wrote about a logical fallacy you yourself are committing and trying to squirm out of with more rationalizations. There is a fundamental distinction between a political right to believe what one wants versus having or not having logical grounds for assertions. That is a factual distinction, not mere opinion. That is not circular. Beginning with a recognition of reason and logic is not mere opinion. That is not circular.

              It isn't true that "there is nothing to see here" as you "move on". We see a mystic evading logic and ducking out under a cloud of rationalistic obfuscation.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
                Yes, actually, the author did state that and I quoted it verbatim from the blog.

                Criticism is opinion. So is speculation. It is positing what may be prior to any test. And contrary to the author's assertion, everyone has the right to an opinion. This should not be confused with any conclusion about the validity of said opinion, however, and the author is asserting that one may have an opinion only after it has been validated. This is a circular argument.

                "Your criticism was false and irrelevant"

                Your opinion is duly noted. ;)

                "And you reveal why: You want to be taken seriously in your mystical "postulation of the object",

                Wow. Another diatribe bringing up religion when it was never the object of a post. It must be really frightening to be you. All those ghosts floating around all the time, just jumping out to say boo every time you turn your head. You must live in constant fear, sweaty-faced and jumping at every sound. A horror flick to you would be a Catholic liturgy (though I have to say they would bore me to death). Dude, get a grip.

                "There is a fundamental distinction between a political right to believe what one wants versus having or not having logical grounds for assertions."

                I agree, but this is not what the author stated as quoted in the blog. The author specifically asserted that there was no fundamental right to opinion. That's his opinion and I disagree. And I'd love to see either him or you try to take away my right to disagree.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 1 month, 1 week ago
                  That you are misrepresenting the book is fact; that is not mere "opinion", as has been demonstrated and carefully described to you, which you refuse to acknowledge. It is not "diatribe", as anyone can see. You are in fact wrong. Your insistence on your "opinion" in spite of that is an example of the fallacy the book describes. Your tortured rationalizations insisting that the author said the opposite of what he said does not change that. His logic is not "circular". You have not refuted anything. Your arbitrary religious method of thinking and pleading that it be taken seriously in a bizarre claim to the primacy of your opinions is all through your posts. You are a subjectivist. It is not logic. Neither is the usual religious cadre 'downvoting' posts in support of logic on what is supposed to be an Ayn Rand forum.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • -2
                    Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
                    I took statements and quoted them verbatim. If the author of the book would care to clarify the blog post, I will listen to his arguments. If you have been granted authority to speak on his behalf, you may explain these statements. If not, your opinion of my opinion is just another opinion which - if one believes the quote - you don't have any "right" to offer. Oops.

                    I note that on a previous thread, I identified the fact that you do not support the First Amendment. Your view was that it allowed far too much leeway and freedom. Your support of this author's view would fall directly in line with that statement: you support the suppression of speech you disagree with. You would seek that anyone who wishes to express their opinion must go through you to do so. While I find those views consistent, I also find them antithetical to freedom.

                    I downvote you when your posts exude a belligerent attitude, fail to entertain basic logical structures, or arbitrarily cry "religion". I also upvote you when you present a cogent case - which you certainly have the capability to do. You have the intelligence to be a significant contributor, but lack the tolerance or patience to engage in profitable debate because you currently lack the capability or empathy to see something from someone else's point of view. This need not be a permanent mindset or restriction, however it will require actual work on your part to temper your impulses. It isn't as if any of us haven't been where you are, but we recognize that people are a lot more pleasant to be around when they aren't so interested in professing their own superiority that they actually listen to the ideas coming from others.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
                      Baseless opinions oblivious to all response is worthless. Your continuing misrepresentation of the book's description of the logical fallacy you are committing is dishonest. Your evasive refusal to address the reasons given in rejecting you "opinion", your rationalistic obfuscation, and your false personal attacks are dishonestly unresponsive.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • -1
                        Posted by  $  blarman 1 month ago
                        It's your opinion vs mine. And that is the entire point of my criticism of the author's claim. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't consider the author nor his arguments authoritative, so any logical fallacy he claims to invent is subject to further scrutiny. I accept neither your opinion nor his as taking precedent over my own. The products of my mind - my opinions, conclusions, hypotheses, postulations, etc. - are all mine and I give no man authority to otherwise subject any such to their personal approval before airing them. I don't care if you disagree with me, I have the right to disagree - to view things from my own personal experiences and knowledge. To presume a station that somehow you have any right to censor my views according to your subjective opinion is arrogant, coercive and intolerant. Period.

                        There is absolutely nothing dishonest in my disagreement. It is not my problem if it offends your sensitivities and prejudices. Reality does that sometimes. I didn't evade anything either. I laid out my case in precise terms but I don't answer to you as the arbiter.

                        If you want to persuade me that I have misinterpreted something, start with trying to understand my argument first instead of simply resorting to name-calling, strawman arguments, and character assassination. Only when you see things from my perspective will you begin to see where other things you have noted can fill in the holes - and not a moment sooner.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
                          This is the Subjectivist repeating the same fallacy with increasing emotionalism -- logic is so "intolerant" of subjectivism. It isn't a matter of a "your opinion versus mine". Reasons matter. Reasons do not become irrelevant as a "matter of opinion". His "criticism" of the author's description of the "right to an opinion" fallacy in fact misrepresented it. We start with the facts, not Blarman's argument and subjectivist "perspective" that all is "opinion". The irony is that his misrepresentation committed the fallacy. This was all previously described in simple factual terms, which anyone can read, not his invented "name-calling, strawman arguments, and character assassination".
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by lrshultis 1 month ago
                  ewv seems to believe that there are rights other than political rights with his statement
                  "There is a fundamental distinction between a political right to believe what one wants versus having or not having logical grounds for assertions."
                  By definition rights are defined with respect to the freedom one has to act in a social (political) context. There exist only political rights.
                  Is ewv the one down voting you as though you can not be free to make an opinion on the book and of his comments?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
                    The common terminology "crimes against logic" and "no logical right" used in the book and elsewhere obviously do not refer to the concept of political rights. The book explicitly distinguishes epistemology from political rights. It doesn't mean there are rights in addition to political rights as something else in the same genus: They are entirely different concepts. One is not an extension of the other. That is why "There is a fundamental distinction between a political right to believe what one wants versus having or not having logical grounds for assertions."

                    The book does not reject a political right to believe whatever one wants to. Quite the contrary. The fallacy it describes is that of invoking a political right to having an opinion as a substitute for logical standards of validity. That is the whole point. The book's description and illustration of the fallacy is explicit and clear. It rejects conflation of the two different uses of the word. Having a political right to hold an opinion does not justify what it asserts and does not make it immune to criticism, as if there were no right to reject it (either in logic or by political right).

                    This has been explained several times in this thread. There is no excuse for anyone to go off on a tangent dropping context and dodging the explanation of the "right to an opinion" fallacy by dramatically wrapping himself in "political rights" while playing equivocal word games and crying victim, which is the fallacy the author is talking about. How ironic. No one told Blarman he had no right to criticize, it was simply pointed out that his false accusations committed the fallacy.

                    But understanding this requires the ability to think in concepts and their meaning tied to reality, not rationalizing with word manipulation and floating abstractions.

                    The scope of committing the fallacy is much deeper than a case by case equivocation over "rights" in particular arguments. Philosophical subjectivists at root equate a "right" to an opinion with a supposed validity or epistemological value for anything they assert as a matter of principle. This is typical, for example, in religion. They overtly exempt themselves from logical standards while trying to undermine what they don't like as nothing more than opinion.

                    They commit the fallacy in the very basis of their subjectivist thinking. They demand that whatever they say be taken seriously and just as good as anything else because they say it, then demand exemption from rejection or criticism. It's no surprise that such a subjectivist would try deflect the very principle of the right to an opinon fallacy by claiming it is "circular". They do not recognize the principle of objectivity.

                    https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • -1
                    Posted by  $  blarman 1 month ago
                    "Is ewv the one down voting you as though you can not be free to make an opinion on the book and of his comments?"

                    Yes, but this isn't his first time. Look throughout many other posts and you may see a pattern in his arguments.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
                      The pattern to your arguments is misrepresentation. When you post something here it is not exempt from analysis or rejection. That does not mean that you don't have a right to whatever opinions you feel like, but your opinions are not self-justifying. If you don't want to be responsible for what you write here then don't write it. There are no exemptions for "opinion".

                      There are, however, limits to what is appropriate on an Ayn Rand forum in stubbornly repeating arbitrary pronouncements and personal attacks.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 1 week ago
    It sounds like a good baloney detection kit. (I think Carl Sagan invented that phrase.)

    I did not not understand in the case of Jack and Jill, why Jill was begging the question. It seems like they leaped from regulation to poverty to property rights without saying why.

    When I think of begging the question I think of the exchange between that young woman and the climate change denier :https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
    The denier rejects the young woman's evidence because it came from a gov't source. The young woman responds by saying the data is trustworthy because the gov't it came from has an excellent record of fighting climate change. The young woman is clearly begging the question because her claim rests on a premise that is also what she's trying to prove.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 1 week ago
      Hello CG, I don't think anyone denies that the climate changes and that it always has an always will. In fact, I think most are aware that ALL planets (perhaps moons too) have climate change. Climate change is nature in action.

      Why people distrust government findings and those FUNDED by tax dollars through the government, is that there has been fraudulent information manufactured AND promoted heavily to pass crippling legislation to collar American industry while leaving heavy weights like China, India and Russia unhindered. If the science wasn't funded by governments and championed by politicians I think the danger man poses to the planet would have 1) a more specific name 2) a scientific method that never relied on falsified manufactured data and 3) wouldn't need consensus to validate its reality.

      You don't need to lie about things to prove them when you've used empirical evidence to feed your scientific method.

      My 2 bits.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
      I do not have the book here. It was a library book, and I can get it again, of course. If you want to discuss the book, then I recommend the book over my review.

      As for Anthropogenic Global Warming, I agree with you that in the debate linked on GGOL, the two women are arguing at each other and past each other. As you note, the young woman is asserting the hypothesis (begging the question). But the climate denier is also skipping a step.

      Here on GGOL more recently is a link to the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, claiming that the figure "... 97% of climate scientists agree..." is based on those who accept government funding and the premise that AGW is real. Again, though, that is a separate claim, not proof or disproof of AGW. As he said, science does not rest on consensus.

      It is a fact that cities are warmer than their surrounding countrysides.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • 11
        Posted by ewv 1 month, 1 week ago
        As some of the more independent climate scientists point out, saying that man can have some effect on climate and observing that climate changes over time is not at all the same as saying that 97% of scientists agree with the climate hysteria "save the planet" movement blaming man for the dominant trends in climate change and concluding that it means the world is coming to an end unless we adopt draconian government controls and prohibitions, then accuse any one who refuses to go along as being a "climate denier". There are no "climate deniers".

        The whole climate hysteria movement is ideological and political, appealing to some fragments of science but misintegrating them into an ideology rationalistically concocted far from the realm of science. The "97% of scientists" slogan and the rhetoric about "climate deniers", both employed for intimidation, are only part of their dogma.

        Rational consensus is a result of proven facts becoming widely known. It is an informal result of science. It does not mean that any "consensus" defines science so you had better go along with groupthink, made even worse when the nature of the "consensus" appealed to is equivocal and ideological. Scientists do not get together and vote on a consensus to decide what is true, which everyone is then expected to believe. Yet the most obnoxious of the movement groupies, who wouldn't know real science if they tripped over it, treat "scientific consensus" as an authority like a religion.

        Even a normal informal consensus is not uniformly reliable and not a standard. Many people believe something to be true because those they respect those who believe it, not because they have understood the validation first hand themselves. This is even true, for example, when believing what was in the text books you learned it from because you respect the reputation of the authors, the arguments seem plausible, and at least of some of the applications seem correct. It's important to always retain the reasons why you believe something in order to maintain its proper status in your mind, to correct anything you find wrong, and look for what other implications it may have had in the rest of your knowledge. Relying simply on consensus is deadly. Collective subjectivism is not objectivity.

        When some science becomes politicized, however, the problem becomes much worse, as we see now. It isn't hard to understand why even those legitimately working in some aspect of that or some other science can climb on a bandwagon for something they don't know first hand. The influence of government money is only part of the problem. It's all made worse by a gradually spreading bad epistemology. Individuals can be quite competent in their own narrow specialty but still have a bad philosophy leading them astray.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Lucky 1 month, 1 week ago
          The long post of ewv. Yes.
          ' The influence of government money is only part of the problem.'
          The effect of $1.5 trillion a year is powerful.
          However, the real problem is the way people allow themselves to be manipulated by (false) altruism by using heart over head. Celebrities, politicians and mush-heads in general all want to save the planet.

          MM's topic-
          the great crime against logic is to either ignore it or to claim logic is inferior to emotional claptrap.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
          Just as an aside, in 1966, for a high school summer job, I sterilized glassware in a genetics lab. One day, they sent me to the library to get educated. In one textbook about 20 years old, it said that humans have 48 chromosomes, 2 pairs of 24. But when geneticists re-worked their karyotypes, no one was accused of denial, and no one pointed to the consensus of 97% of geneticists. Instead, the facts spoke.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 1 week ago
        "97% of climate scientists agree..." is based on those who accept government funding and the premise that AGW is real."
        Yes, it's begging the question. It's similar to arguing No true Scotsman.

        "As he said, science does not rest on consensus."
        Is this actually true? On its face, it seems wrong. It seems like research develops models. Most science is Kuhn's "normal science", refining those models and finding anomalies. Eventually someone finds a better model.

        Paraphrasing Asimov, the most exciting phrase in science is not Eureka, but rather That's funny....

        Outside my area, I heard of the consensus shifting on the role of fats and cholesterol in heart disease. I heard of the consensus changing on whether the future of the universe is a big crunch or big freeze. I don't understand science without consensus.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
          Well, yes, that is true. I know Kuhn's work, of course. Consensus in science is real. However, the claim against it is simply that we do not vote. "Most scientists" can believe this or that, but they do not running opinion polls.

          You must know the works of John McPhee. I have a review of In Suspect Terrain on my blog, here:
          http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20... We all know that Alfred Wegener had to fight against an intransigent establishment when he proposed continental drift. Now, however, plate tectonics is apparently used to explain events that have other causes entirely. But in any case, the "consensus" did not come from open polling.

          I note that when arguing the Copenhagen Interpretation, no one cites the number of physicists who agree with one claim or another.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -1
            Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 1 week ago
            The very first words in the linked blog post are "According to most geologists..."

            This is either going over my head or the criticism of the phrase "scientific consensus" is desperate wishful thinking from people who don't like what science is finding.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
              Consensus exists. It does not come from polling. Climate consensus does come from polling. Moreover, where consensus is lacking, in most sciences, you do not find "deniers." Is the known universe expanding? What is "dark matter"?

              One difference is that while there is federal funding for astronomy, the stargazers are not demanding that we give up refrigerating our food in order to prevent the continued expansion of the universe into oblivion or that we maintain "small nutrino footprints" for the good of unborn generations.

              Now, those might be good proposals, but no one is making them. With the climate, on the other hand, we do have political consequences, laws, ultimately.

              I have a couple of other writing projects right now, but I intend to pen a "climate science" piece for the Gulch. I have had graduate classes in remote sensing and geographic information systems. Warming is real.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • 10
                Posted by  $  DrZarkov99 1 month, 1 week ago
                The problem with the proponents of AGW is that so many "punchlines" for selling their position are not founded on credible data. The famous "97%" figure came from a researcher who picked over 3,000 papers that discussed AGW, and a poll he sent to the authors. Only 78 responded, with 76 affirmative, which is closer to 96%, but he rounded it up to 97%. Pick any other scientific, medical, or political stance and try to sell a position globally on the opinion of only 76 people and you get laughed out of the discussion.

                The most fervent proponents of AGW have been caught "cooking the books" by overcounting data that supports their position, and discounting any that conflict. When challenged to use data from earlier than the last 100 years, their models fail to predict our current climate status, making their predictions for the future highly suspect.

                AGW proponents often jump on the latest severe weather, and claim it's an element of the predicted catastrophic change. When others point to unusual weather that implies a different direction for the climate, the AGW crowd declaims the doubters are confusing weather with climate, apparently oblivious to their own confusion.

                The atmosphere of secular theological argument that surrounds the proponents of AGW creates a fog of uncertainty about the credibility of their science. Even the use of the term "denier" is borrowed from shaming people who don't think the holocaust really occurred. The proper description of one that is skeptical about a scientific position is "doubter."
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 1 month, 1 week ago
                  The"denier" rhetoric employed for moral intimidation isn't the only example. The incongruous hysterical appeals to "science" itself serve the same purpose. Their religiosity appeals to science as "authority" to badger people into submission.

                  There is a long line of ideologues attempting to cash in on the intellectual prestige of science to bludgeon people -- Scientology, Christian Science, Marx's Scientific Socialism, Comte's scientific Positivism for altruism-collectivism, etc.

                  One terrible affect of this package dealing is to undermine the value of science itself. People who don't understand how scientific inquiry works conclude that it's no different than any other fanaticism they encounter, and everybody learns to distrust anything called "science".
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • -1
                  Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 1 week ago
                  "AGW proponents often jump on the latest severe weather, and claim it's an element of the predicted catastrophic change. When others point to unusual weather that implies a different direction for the climate, the AGW crowd declaims the doubters are confusing weather with climate, apparently oblivious to their own confusion."
                  Non-scientists confusing weather with climate have nothing to do with this. When it's an unusually hot day or a bad summer storm system, people who don't understand science think it demonstrates climate change. When it's an unusually cold day people who don't understand science think it contradicts climate change. This is silliness. It is a very small long-term trend on top of a huge amount of Gaussian white noise. Moreover these people are often talking about one location on earth. Talking about non-scientsts' misunderstandings is a way to avoid facing the inconvenient answers coming from science.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  DrZarkov99 1 month, 1 week ago
                    It isn't a matter of scientific discussion but snake oil salesmanship. Both scientists and non-scientists have nothing but contempt for the "stupid" public they have to sell this to in order to create a demand for spending gobs of money on projects with uncertain outcome. Hansen, the NASA scientist, engages in this shameless twist frequently, and Al Gore unendingly bleats his chicken little warnings of the end of the world with every severe weather report. Whether they themselves believe it or not doesn't matter, if they can convince the true believers who aren't well educated on the difference between weather and climate.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 1 week ago
                      Dr Stadler and Floyd Ferris. But but while Hansen may have once had the potential, he commits a lot more fallacies than conflating weather with climate. He believes an ideology. It isn't hard, watching the prominent climate hysteria "activist scientists" with their emotional and viciously political submersion, to see that it isn't science regardless of what narrower scientific work they may have otherwise done.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 1 week ago
                      "It isn't a matter of scientific discussion but snake oil salesmanship."
                      Reality still exists. We can focus on reality or focus on snake oil salesman making climate claims with ever severe weather report. Reality goes on without regard to them.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 1 month, 1 week ago
                        So does their politics and apocalyptic ideology posing as science as the movement hysteria has taken on a 'life' of its own.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 1 week ago
                          "apocalyptic ideology "
                          No matter if we're talking about something completely unrelated, you keep going back to that because that point is wrong and easy to refute.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  DrZarkov99 1 month, 1 week ago
                            Reality: water vapor is 95% of greenhouse affecting elements; CO2 constitutes only 2.6%; human activities contribute 4% of total CO2 production, so we affect greenhouse heating by about .01%. Those numbers are facts, regardless what side of the debate you're on. Even if the human race disappeared, it would have little effect on CO2 production.

                            More reality: ice cores show that with past rises in temperature, CO2 content of the atmosphere rose AFTER the start of the temperature rise, not before. Since we've been coming out of the "little ice age" for several hundred years, the rise we're witnessing appears to be business as usual.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  edweaver 1 month, 1 week ago
                Don't write a piece for the gulch. Provide the proven data. I've yet to see anything that comes close to proving the planet is warming to any degree that will negatively affect the planet for thousands of years. Show me the proof.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 1 week ago
                "stargazers are not demanding that we give up refrigerating our food"
                Yes. And if a climate scientist tells us to give up refrigeration, she is outside her area of expertise. It's like Linus Pauling telling us to take mega doses of vitamin C.

                "With the climate, on the other hand, we do have political consequences, laws, ultimately."
                That's true. If we argue that those consequences affect reality, something you're not saying, it's a classic case of appeal to consequences.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 1 month, 1 week ago
                  It's a classic case of appeal to speculated doom to frighten people into submission. A classic case of threats of fire and brimstone. The hysteria over repealing Obama's illegal Paris agreement is an example (illegal because he refused to submit it to the Senate for ratification). By their own arguments the agreement would have virtually no impact even if all countries followed it, which itself is unlikely. Yet we are repeatedly told, with wailing and hand ringing (and Liberal "concern") that dropping out will lead to widespread death and destruction.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 1 week ago
                    I do not follow this. I don't think you're responding to the part about political consequences of people exploiting reality to promote socialism. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems like you're just defaulting back to one straw man, i.e. doom and hysteria, that's easy to refute, even though we're not discussing that point.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 1 week ago
                      They aren't "exploiting reality", they are ginning up and exploiting fear in the name of "science". We are discussing that; their ideology is inseparable from both their "science" and politics.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 1 month, 1 week ago
    Anyone can look at the book at https://www.amazon.com/Crimes-Against... where there is a full table of contents, some pages available for reading, and a search facility.

    For example, the opening pages describe the fallacy of the equivocal "right to an opinion" that you have referred to elsewhere and which has been obnoxiously employed on this forum.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 month, 1 week ago
      Who are the clowns who are emotionally voting down logic on an Ayn Rand forum? They don't belong here. Perhaps they are the same clowns who employ the fallacy themselves and who in their irrationalism lash out by mindlessly but systematically 'downvoting' whole sequences of straightforward, perfectly reasonable posts while engaging in outbursts of personal insults and phony accusations. They really don't belong here.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 1 week ago
        "Perhaps they are the same clowns who employ the fallacy themselves"
        Apparently the clowns think argument from personal incredulity is a valid argument but don't want to say so aloud.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 month, 1 week ago
          Incredulity in the absence of understanding is one form of the opinion fallacy if it is used as argument. Science has a long history of discovering surprising facts that many were reluctant to believe. Some want to know more, perhaps remaining doubtful, and others insist that it can't be true, based on their own incredulity in a circular argument. (This does not mean everything claimed in the name of science is valid.)

          But the forum clowns of record I had in mind are those who refuse to follow and who can't tolerate logical argument as such, rationalizing that in the name of "opinion". They insist in advance that their "opinion" is just as good as anything else. They reject all criticism by claiming their "opinion" is exempt because it is opinion, while hypocritically expecting it to be taken as serious assertion. They loudly announce that rational argument is an attempt to "force" them to "submit". One version of the latter is shrieking (in all capital letters) that reason and fact "shackle" and "enslave" the mind.

          Concomitantly, they proclaim that someone else's reasoned argument can be no better than their own opinion and refuse to read or consider it, stating that it (and, in general all philosophy) must a priori by "definition" be "only opinion" and mere "belief", not fact. One version includes stubbornly refusing to even acknowledge what has been said as they misrepresent it in one-liners and denounce it is as self evidently "wordy diarrhea". If you dare to think you know what you are talking about and try to explain it then you are "like a Liberal". It's an ugly, in-the-gutter intellectual nihilism on behalf of subjectivism.

          That is all from the record of several posts elsewhere on this forum. Yes they really do that here.

          (Imagine Atlas Shrugged reduced to this approach: "This is John Galt speaking. Admittedly this is only opinion, no better than Mr. Thompson's opinion, to which he has every right, so I won't take up much of your time with my verbal diarrhea before his turn. We do want him to be heard again, and again, and again to give his equally valid opinion, which must be valid because he has a right to it... Existence exists, but that's only my opinion; others may opine differently [you fill in the rest] ... And now, back to an equally valid opinion from Mr. Thompson following this brief opinion announcement from Mr. Taggert.")

          The fallacy described (along with many others) in the book Crimes Against Logic is in essence a crude attempt to claim a "right to an opinion" as grounds for exemption from logical argument, equivocating between epistemology versus a political right to believe whatever one wants to regardless of the grounds or lack of grounds for it. Hence the terminology "logical crime".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  puzzlelady 1 month, 1 week ago
            Hear, hear, ewv! A great autopsy.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 1 month, 1 week ago
              They are ironically repeating the same pattern on this same page, ironic because one of them stepped right into illustrating the logical fallacy this thread is about, then proceeded in the usual fashion: misrepresent, evade rational rebuttal, obfuscate with rationalism, personally attack, and invoke "opinion" as unassailable because it's opinion. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  puzzlelady 1 month ago
                My sympathy, ewv. It's the old story, "My mind's made up; don't confuse me with facts."

                An "opinion" is a conclusion or judgment on incomplete evidence. Sometimes it is given a more honorable interpretation, as when the Supreme Court hands down its "opinion". For common folk it's just a "feeling" about a subject without an objective evaluation. Surely everyone has a political right to think and opine anyway they like, along with the right to say and write anything they want (with a few exceptions).

                A pure, unsupported "opinion" can certainly be expressed but has no standing as an assertion of truth in reality without proof. The fact of its being an opinion is true; that does not give the content or substance of that opinion any validity without proof in reality. I can SAY that 2 plus 2 is 5. It's true that I've said it. It does not make the equation correct.

                Our wonderful brains, so skilled in rational thought, are even more adept at desperate rationalizations to save face and not admit being wrong. And what drives those defenses? The resident memes.

                And as we know, relying on emotions alone does not yield valid judgments. Check the premises.

                Oh, what a tangled web they spew
                Who logic from debate eschew. -- Kate Jones

                If people could only take pride and pleasure in finding errors in their own thought structure so as to attain a higher level of objective truth instead of going on the attack against those who can contribute to a better understanding of reality... As Ayn Rand said, there is no conflict of interest among rational men.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
      Yes, the cutline ("caption") for the illustration on my blog article ends with a link to Google Books which also provides the same read as Amazon, about the first ten pages, including most of the chapter on "The Right to Your Opinion."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo