"Independent Thinking" vs Appeal To Authority In Science
in [Math]
|
Prev: Benford's Law
Next: where we have a new understanding of what factorial means in 254! = 10^500 #648 Correcting Math
From: Brad Guth on 18 Jul 2010 15:02 On Jul 11, 9:37 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > When the general public hears about a nearby prison break they don't > have or need the time to research all the court documents to verify > for themselves that the escapees are in fact actually violent > murderers and not just some wrongfully convicted innocents. > > The public is aware of itself, the judicial process, the established > institutions and the media and various authorities to be sure enough > to lock the doors, etc. > > In fact, most of the general public will generally go to the ER and > hope that they won't get the wrong limbs amputated. > > Something similar goes on in science. Scientists are familiar with > the peer review process and established institutions and personalities > and can draw conclusions and take action on work that is completely > outside of their field. > > So appeal to authority is something every astute person does at some > time or another. The ones who appear ignorant of vetting processes > and institutions are called "wingers." > > Independent thinking in science means coming up with a new > relationship, something _no one_ has stated before. While this is a > lofty goal doesn't mean that all scientists spend all their time doing > it. > > Most non atmospheric scientists listen to the atmospheric scientists > and maybe wonder about some of their methods but generally believe > what the atmospheric scientists are basically correct. > > But under no circumstances can anyone suggest independent thinking is > a mob of high school drops out sitting around listening to a high > school drop out talk radio host tell the largest lowest common > denominator mob audience what they already wanted to hear because he > gets the most money pandering to the biggest mob of doggy poopy > stoopid rightards. > > Bret Cahill The world needs to know: Glaciers and other well established volumes of slow-ice have been thawing from the ground up, as much or more so than from the top down since 12,900 BP, and especially accelerated as of 11,712 BP as though direct sunlight finally broke through them clouds that shouldnt have existed if this last ice-age were merely another natural fluke of terrestrial and solar cycles. However, does anyone really care outside of protecting their purely for-profit investments (including their job and/or retirement security)? Perhaps its only getting hotter, stormier and suckier because Earth has been losing mass, no thanks to the diligent likes of dysfunctionals like BP and so many others spilling, venting, toxic saturating and converting so much of their raw hydrocarbons into CO2, NOx plus any number of toxic and acidic secondary elements to boot. I mean, what Eden like planet isnt complete without massive and expanding dead-zones of oxygen depleted ocean, and having its agricultural infrastructure made so toxic that even robust exoskeleton life cant coexist. We're sucking Earth dry in more ways than ever before, as well as having been polluting the living hell out of mother Earths land, sea and atmosphere, plus we're losing roughly a tonne per second to boot (mostly helium and hydrogen). Gee whiz, what could possibly go wrong? Scientists baffled by unusual upper atmosphere shrinkage >http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/16/nasa.upper.atmosphere.shrinking/index.html?hpt=C1> (CNN) -- An upper layer of Earth's atmosphere recently shrank so much that researchers are at a loss to adequately explain it, NASA said on Thursday. "This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years," John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab was quoted as saying in NASA news report. There's lots more critical info if you'd care to research into any of this, as well as objective science as to how much is getting artificially spilled and vented into our environment. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/16/nasa.upper.atmosphere.shrinking/index.html?hpt=C1 Don't expect any of our resident Usenet/newsgroup Semites to give a tinker's damn, other than expect their usual tactical swarm gauntlet of topic/author stalking and bashing for all its worth. Even pretend- Atheists that act/react exactly like devout Zionist/Jews are so dysfunctional when it comes down to helping anyone except themselves. Check out the July/August Discover published topic of "The Streetlight Effect" by David H. Freedman. It points out how dead wrong mainstream can actually be most of the time, and why it's likely to stay that way. http://www.freedman.com/ http://www.freedman.com/articles/DiscStreetlight.pdf ~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 18 Jul 2010 15:03 On Jul 11, 10:51 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Jul 11, 9:37 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > When the general public hears about a nearby prison break they don't > > have or need the time to research all the court documents to verify > > for themselves that the escapees are in fact actually violent > > murderers and not just some wrongfully convicted innocents. > > > The public is aware of itself, the judicial process, the established > > institutions and the media and various authorities to be sure enough > > to lock the doors, etc. > > > In fact, most of the general public will generally go to the ER and > > hope that they won't get the wrong limbs amputated. > > > Something similar goes on in science. Scientists are familiar with > > the peer review process and established institutions and personalities > > and can draw conclusions and take action on work that is completely > > outside of their field. > > > So appeal to authority is something every astute person does at some > > time or another. The ones who appear ignorant of vetting processes > > and institutions are called "wingers." > > > Independent thinking in science means coming up with a new > > relationship, something _no one_ has stated before. While this is a > > lofty goal doesn't mean that all scientists spend all their time doing > > it. > > > Most non atmospheric scientists listen to the atmospheric scientists > > and maybe wonder about some of their methods but generally believe > > what the atmospheric scientists are basically correct. > > A real scientists, like myself, may, at time, suspend their disbelief > temporarily until they've had a chance to further investigate. But > you are wrong to suggest that any real scientists would choose to > believe something just because some other "expert" said it to be > true. Believing without evidence is the realm of science-based > whackos, like AGW advocates. It's not the realm of any intellectually > honest real scientist. > > > > > But under no circumstances can anyone suggest independent thinking is > > a mob of high school drops out sitting around listening to a high > > school drop out talk radio host tell the largest lowest common > > denominator mob audience what they already wanted to hear because he > > gets the most money pandering to the biggest mob of doggy poopy > > stoopid rightards. > > My advice is to stop looking for scientific truth on the radio. "Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me." / George Orwell If we knew what we were doing, it wouldnt be called research, would it? / Einstein Check out the July/August Discover published topic of "The Streetlight Effect" by David H. Freedman. It points out how dead wrong mainstream can actually be most of the time, and why it's likely to stay that way. http://www.freedman.com/ http://www.freedman.com/articles/DiscStreetlight.pdf ~ BG
From: Claudius Denk on 18 Jul 2010 15:05 On Jul 16, 7:40 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > For a real scientists consensus opinions are worthless. > > Exactly!! I've seen what you've observed many times. > > I have found that folks like Mr. Cahill have damaged egos and question > their own intelligence, and they get ego support by pretending to be "pro- > science" (whatever that is) and parroting the views, with the total lack > of any understanding that parroting implies, of those they have > irrationally chosen to follow mindlessly. > > A true authority never needs to say "because I said so"; a true authority > is an authority because they can explain how they arrived at their > conclusion using logic and repeatable experimental data. Very well stated!
From: Brad Guth on 18 Jul 2010 15:11 On Jul 18, 11:39 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 10:23 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 06:38:50 -0700, M Purcell wrote: > > > On Jul 17, 10:50 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > >> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:22:37 -0700, hersheyh wrote: > > >> > On Jul 17, 11:26 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > >> >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:24:55 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: > > >> >> >> < snip far left anti-American political rant > > > > >> >> > This is what was snipped by the winger dinger: > > > >> >> Wow. A childish, immature and irrelevant argumentum ad hominem that > > >> >> shows that you're politically motivated (you desire a nanny state > > >> >> and want to suckle off Uncle Sam's hairy teats), immature, and have > > >> >> a low level of intelligence. > > > >> >> < snip the bad analogy fallacy comparing prisons to science in > > >> >> arguing why everyone should stop thinking and listen to (socialist) > > >> >> authorities.> > > > >> >> First of all, your silly analogy fails. Prisons are not science. > > >> >> Science is observation, hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and accept > > >> >> or reject the hypothesis based on the results of the test. It is a > > >> >> continuous process. A well known example is classical mechanics; it > > >> >> was tested and proven to be a useful theory up until the beginning > > >> >> of the 20th century, when it began to fail. Then new theories, like > > >> >> QM and SR, were developed to predict where CM failed. > > > >> >> AS science goes, AGW is a fail. The predictions of the late 1990s > > >> >> failed to predict the non-warming of the next decade. In science, > > >> >> that is called "the rejected hypothesis". Further, Svensmark keyed > > >> >> on the stronger correlation between solar cycle and climate change > > >> >> and found the physical mechanism and verified his theory at CERN. > > >> >> His theory not only explains climate change for the last 4 billion > > >> >> years, but the hemispherical effects of climate change, the solar > > >> >> correlation, and the observed climate change on other planets that > > >> >> AGW fails to predict. The increase in CO2 is then explained by > > >> >> simple chemistry: a warmer ocean holds less CO2 and dissolves more > > >> >> carbonate into CO2. CO2 is an EFFECT, not a cause, of warming. At > > >> >> this point, one applies Occam's Razor. > > > >> > What exactly, then, if the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere > > >> > is due to the release of carbon from the ocean, makes *all* the > > >> > gigatons of anthropogenically-generated CO2 disappear from the > > >> > atmosphere? The usual estimates of the amount of CO2 produced > > >> > anthropogenically comes up with numbers that are *larger* than (about > > >> > double) the observed amount from anthropogenic sources (leading to > > >> > the idea that the "missing" anthropogenic CO2 is being absorbed by > > >> > the oceans, which are the only sink with sufficiently fast rate of > > >> > uptake and capacity). Now you are saying that the oceans are not the > > >> > sink for the missing part of the amount of anthropogenically produced > > >> > CO2, but actually is the *source* of the observed increase in > > >> > atmospheric CO2. If that is so, where did *all* the anthropogenic > > >> > CO2 produced during the industrial age go? It's missing! It had to > > >> > go somewhere. Should we put out a missing gas announcement? Where is > > >> > it? > > > >> Equilibrium exists because the chemical reaction goes both ways, and > > >> when the two reaction rates are equal, the equilibrium is reached. > > > >> If you add 5.5 GtC to the atmosphere/ocean/Carbonate rock/vegetation > > >> system, most of it will end up in the oceans or vegetation, and very > > >> little will remain in the atmosphere. > > > >> But the only thing that can change the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere > > >> to CO2 in the ocean, or CO2 in the ocean to CO2 in carbonate rocks, is > > >> a temperature increase. If there is no temperature increase, then the > > >> rations will remain the same. This is simple freshmen chemistry. > > > >> So adding 5.5 GtC to the entire SYSTEM will have a very small effect on > > >> the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Raising the temperature of the > > >> earth will shift the equilibrium constants so that more CO2 enters the > > >> water, and more CO2 enters the atmosphere. > > > > Have you already forgotten a temperature increase decreases solubility? > > > Your question is based on a false premise. I prefer people state their > > meaning rather than avoid making a direct statement by asking a question. > > > A temperature increase TENDS to decrease solubility of gases, and > > increase the solubility of solids. > > As a reminder, you said "Raising the temperature of the earth will > shift the equilibrium constants so that more CO2 enters the water..". > CO2 is not a solid and more will not enter the water with increasing > temperatures. There's no such thing as pure CO2. Like h2o is always laced with all sorts of natural and artificial elements. Whatever goes up must come down, except for all the helium and some of the hydrogen as well as a little O2 goes away forever. The world needs to know: Glaciers and other well established volumes of slow-ice have been thawing from the ground up, as much or more so than from the top down since 12,900 BP, and especially accelerated as of 11,712 BP as though direct sunlight finally broke through them clouds that shouldnt have existed if this last ice-age were merely another natural fluke of terrestrial and solar cycles. However, does anyone really care outside of protecting their purely for-profit investments (including their job and/or retirement security)? Perhaps its only getting hotter, stormier and suckier because Earth has been losing mass, no thanks to the diligent likes of dysfunctionals like BP and so many others spilling, venting, toxic saturating and converting so much of their raw hydrocarbons into CO2, NOx plus any number of toxic and acidic secondary elements to boot. I mean, what Eden like planet isnt complete without massive and expanding dead-zones of oxygen depleted ocean, and having its agricultural infrastructure made so toxic that even robust exoskeleton life cant coexist. We're sucking Earth dry in more ways than ever before, as well as having been polluting the living hell out of mother Earths land, sea and atmosphere, plus we're losing roughly a tonne per second to boot (mostly helium and hydrogen). Gee whiz, what could possibly go wrong? Scientists baffled by unusual upper atmosphere shrinkage >http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/16/nasa.upper.atmosphere.shrinking/index.html?hpt=C1> (CNN) -- An upper layer of Earth's atmosphere recently shrank so much that researchers are at a loss to adequately explain it, NASA said on Thursday. "This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years," John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab was quoted as saying in NASA news report. There's lots more critical info if you'd care to research into any of this, as well as objective science as to how much is getting artificially spilled and vented into our environment. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/16/nasa.upper.atmosphere.shrinking/index.html?hpt=C1 Don't expect any of our resident Usenet/newsgroup Semites to give a tinker's damn, other than expect their usual tactical swarm gauntlet of topic/author stalking and bashing for all its worth. Even pretend- Atheists that act/react exactly like devout Zionist/Jews are so dysfunctional when it comes down to helping anyone except themselves. Check out the July/August Discover published topic of "The Streetlight Effect" by David H. Freedman. It points out how dead wrong mainstream can actually be most of the time, and why it's likely to stay that way. http://www.freedman.com/ http://www.freedman.com/articles/DiscStreetlight.pdf ~ BG
From: Claudius Denk on 18 Jul 2010 15:18
On Jul 18, 12:03 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Check out the July/August Discover published topic of "The Streetlight > Effect" by David H. Freedman. It points out how dead wrong mainstream > can actually be most of the time, and why it's likely to stay that > way. Very true. Like the drunk looking for his car keys where the light is best rather than where he lost them. In my case you are preaching to the choir on this topic. > http://www.freedman.com/ > http://www.freedman.com/articles/DiscStreetlight.pdf quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |