"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: Claudius Denk on 12 Jul 2010 10:35 On Jul 11, 1:15 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jul 11, 10:51 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > 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. > > Increasing average global temperatures indicate accelerated warming Leave your imagination out of the discussion. > and we obviously dump various chemicals into the atmosphere which > along with increasing waste heat production does affect the weather. > But I suspect the political drive to reduce carbon emissions has more > to do with air quality than climate change, global temperatures can be > reduced by the addition of sulfates in the upper atmosphere. nonsense.
From: Zerkon on 12 Jul 2010 13:03 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:37:42 -0700, Bret Cahill 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 ....and when the doggy poopies get their money from established institutions who in turn get their money because they have the biggest mobs?
From: Bret Cahill on 12 Jul 2010 13:55 > > 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 > > ...and when the doggy poopies get their money from established > institutions who in turn get their money because they have the biggest > mobs? The reason rightards are so wingered in the first place is because they are ignorant of the basics of law politics and government. And the reason they are so ignorant is because monied interests have controlled the media and education at every level for decades. No one paid enough attention to the conflict of interest of having corp. control of the media. Bret Cahill
From: Tom Sr. on 12 Jul 2010 19:08 On Jul 12, 10:35 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Blah blah. I bet you were all for Reagan's "Star Wars" sceintific research and thought that was just a wonderful use of taxpayers' money. Reagan's "Star Wars" was a fantasy from the start. Climate Change is real. -Tom Sr.
From: Immortalist on 12 Jul 2010 19:36
On Jul 12, 7:35 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Jul 11, 1:15 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 11, 10:51 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Increasing average global temperatures indicate accelerated warming > > Leave your imagination out of the discussion. > I see that you are disagreeing with M Purcell but you offer nothing to back up what you claim. It will do not good to just say something is true or false and then offer not a shred of evidence. Or is it that we are not privy to your prior conversations where you did offer evidence for why you thought that it is not true that increasing average global temperatures indicate accelerated warming? And does the Purcell just let you get away with such hollow claims? > > and we obviously dump various chemicals into the atmosphere which > > along with increasing waste heat production does affect the weather. > > But I suspect the political drive to reduce carbon emissions has more > > to do with air quality than climate change, global temperatures can be > > reduced by the addition of sulfates in the upper atmosphere. > > nonsense. |