The trouble with denialism is it’s an extreme form of skepticism. Rather than useful skepticism which is a helpful way of knowing through doubting without sufficient evidence, it allows the denier to doubt even sufficient evidence against their belief and so allowing them to believe anything they feel like.
The trouble with denialism is it's an extreme form of skepticism. Rather than useful skepticism which is a helpful way of knowing through doubting without sufficient evidence, it allows the denier to doubt even sufficient evidence against their belief and so allowing them to believe anything they feel like.You're 100 percent correct, Stephen. The debate is over. Only someone who is willfully ignorant or lying can deny climate change at this point.
The trouble with denialism is it's an extreme form of skepticism. Rather than useful skepticism which is a helpful way of knowing through doubting without sufficient evidence, it allows the denier to doubt even sufficient evidence against their belief and so allowing them to believe anything they feel like.You're 100 percent correct, Stephen. The debate is over. Only someone who is willfully ignorant or lying can deny climate change at this point. Most climate change deniers are not actually denying the reality of climate change. Most accept that there is change. Where we part company is in whether negative change is caused by human activity and whether humans can do anything to avert climatic catastrophe, or even that catastrophe is likely. Many climate change deniers are laissez-faire capitalists who don't want to accept that untrammelled capitalism can have any climatic affects and don't want to be told they should rethink their capitalistic drive. Lois
Most climate change deniers are not actually denying the reality of climate change. Most accept that there is change. Where we part company is in whether negative change is caused by human activity and whether humans can do anything to avert climatic catastrophe, or even that catastrophe is likely. Many climate change deniers are laissez-faire capitalists who don't want to accept that untrammelled capitalism can have any climatic affects and don't want to be told they should rethink their capitalistic drive. LoisGood points, Lois. My comment applies to that thinking too. Anyone who doubts mankind is driving climate change is not paying attention (willfully ignorant) or lying (the energy-company funded think tanks).
"Good points, Lois. My comment applies to that thinking too. Anyone who doubts mankind is driving climate change is not paying attention (willfully ignorant) or lying (the energy-company funded think tanks). "
I don’t mind if you give your opinion but when you state it as if it is a binary choice only… you are wrong. I am certain that there exists many more possible reasons for the type of ’ thinking’ that you are talking about and yet you state it as if there are only two choices…invalid argument.
So what is the third choice, SD? Watching Fox News?
"Good points, Lois. My comment applies to that thinking too. Anyone who doubts mankind is driving climate change is not paying attention (willfully ignorant) or lying (the energy-company funded think tanks). " I don't mind if you give your opinion but when you state it as if it is a binary choice only..... you are wrong. I am certain that there exists many more possible reasons for the type of ' thinking' that you are talking about and yet you state it as if there are only two choices.....invalid argument.If you read and understood my post you would not make such a ridiculous response. I never implied it was a binary choice, you did. I said many climate change deniers think that way. What's binary about that?
Lois- I was referring to darrons’s statement…not yours. I think that you can clearly see he made his point with only two choices…why only two ?
there may well be 341 other reasons for ‘doubting mankind is driving climate change’.
DarronS- I don’t deny climate change ! I deny anthropogenic global warming. It is not happening. I don’t accept that CO2 is driving the temperatures up.
DarronS- I don't deny climate change ! I deny anthropogenic global warming. It is not happening. I don't accept that CO2 is driving the temperatures up.Why do you deny something 97 percent of professional climatologists agree on?
I deny anthropogenic global warming. It is not happening. I don't accept that CO2 is driving the temperatures up.But even without data we know that's the influence CO2 has. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases.[1][2]So it's really odd that you would deny it. Do you think something else is counteracting the greenhouse effect or what?
Back to the original subject; once again from the Economist:
Basically it appears the way scientists (professors) are remunerated and advance in their careers is a main part of the problem. They are being rewarded, not for good science but for coming up with something “new” without regards for whether the research can be replicated.
Actually, IMO, these articles shows one of the strengths of modern science in that it can be and often is self correcting on many different levels. These articles do this by showing the need for a change to the rewards systems currently dominant.
And by “new” I’ll bet they mean something that can be turned into a new product. Just another symptom of consumerism as implemented by the fascist takeover, er, the success of democracy!
Following the scientific method puts you on much firmer ground than any other methodology. Of course it's not perfect, but it's closer to perfection than religion or politics, neither of which use objective tests for their premises. The scientific method does. You can denigrate science all you want when it suits you, but you use it every day. Your life depends on it. LoisI'm not denigrating science. (That you assume I am raises an interesting little flag.) I'm simply pointing out that any system dependent upon human beings for it's function and implementation, no matter how theoretically sound it otherwise is, is vulnerable to corruption and abuse. And to deny or ignore such a reality is the very sort of blind, unwavering faith that allows it to happen. And lends credence to Gary's initial argument. I might have missed your drift. As I said before, anything created and used by humans is susceptible to corruption. That doesn't mean we can't find ways to discover corruption, point it out and correct it. IMO it's more likely to be done by those using critical thinking and in systems that don't avoid it. Lois
I might have missed your drift. As I said before, anything created and used by humans is susceptible to corruption. That doesn't mean we can't find ways to discover corruption, point it out and correct it. IMO it's more likely to be done by those using critical thinking and in systems that don't avoid it. LoisThen we're in agreement. Honestly, it's been too many days for me to care or remember what this was all about.
And by "new" I'll bet they mean something that can be turned into a new product. Just another symptom of consumerism as implemented by the fascist takeover, er, the success of democracy!Not necessarily a new product; they mean something that is considered a scientific break through.
Science not only can be corrupted, but silly as well.
Which way does your dog’s tail wag? :lol:
All my dogs wag their tails in 180 degree arcs when happy. They do not wag when threatened. I saw this article a week or so ago and thought it was silly. Thanks for providing the link.
I find it curious that no one picked up on the issue of “open-access journals” and the veracity of their product
economist article on how science can be corrupted for personal gain. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21587197-it-seems-dangerously-easy-get-scientific-nonsense-published-sciences-sokal * This shows that some scientists are no less corruptible than some preachers, and many scientific publishers are no better than some religious organizations. It just means we are all human and many of us often use our skills and training for the betterment of our own selves rather than the benefit of general society, even if it means we are being dishonest.
* The publications Dr Bohannon selected for his sting operation were all open-access journals. These make papers available free, and cover their costs by charging authors a fee (typically $1,000-2,000). Policymakers have been keen on such periodicals of late. Since taxpayers already sponsor most academic research, the thinking goes, providing free access to its fruits does not seem unreasonable. But critics of the open-access model have long warned that making authors rather than readers their client risks skewing publishers’ incentives towards tolerating shoddy science.My own limited experience gives me the impression that "open access" too often seems to put the conclusion before the evidence. And although some folks constantly claim main stream science is all corrupt I still like the ideas of peer reviewed journals. . . Once a paper has passed peer review, it gets published and read and then it has to pass the real review of the "community of educated colleagues". Journal articles are read by experts and students (official & un-official) where the entire community of experts has a chance to weight in. Sure seems to me that the established system has many more checks and balances built in than special interest "open-access journals". Don't get me wrong the open access stuff is cool - but isn't it sort of a hobbyists thing more than serious raw knuckles science? Whereas, the other is composed of folks who have endured the education and training needed to achieve genuine fluency and expertise in one chosen arena.
And by "new" I'll bet they mean something that can be turned into a new product. Just another symptom of consumerism as implemented by the fascist takeover, er, the success of democracy!Not necessarily a new product; they mean something that is considered a scientific break through.Actually I said "turned into a new product", or monetized to use the right lingo. So yes, they might be looking for a so-called scientific breakthrough, but I'll bet if you dig deeper the motivation for that is to make money, more money, and hey, if we can save a few lives or whatever, so much the better.