Yo, Fussy Logic, watt's up at SkepticForum?

Fuzzy L,
I know you visit SkepticForum.com occasionally so I was wondering have you tried logging on in the past two days (May 11, 12)?
I been getting the “can’t find server” error as though my internet were down, but everything else is coming in loud and clear.
Have you noticed any problems there?

I did the “Is it just me” check, and SkepticForum is down for everybody. It’s been suffering from sever troll infection lately anyway, but I’m curious about what happened.

I did the "Is it just me" check, and SkepticForum is down for everybody. It's been suffering from sever troll infection lately anyway, but I'm curious about what happened.
Thanks for checking it out. I appreciate the information. And FYI, I'm a techno illiterate, don't look at me. :cheese: Besides, I do my mud wrestling in public. :coolsmile: Let me know if you learn anything. Thanks !

<a href=“http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=92&t=23432”>
Pyrhho is hoot

<a href="http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=92&t=23432"> Pyrhho is hoot
Good to see their up again. Yea, Pyrrho is a hoot. I actually want to like the guy, but he's got a bug up his rear regarding me, guess he likes the endless "debate" whereas I'm looking towards learning and resolution - and am getting really sick of the endless regurgitation of lies being consider a fair part of the "debate" and getting a bit more forward about it. So I've gone head to head with him a couple times about his moderation decisions… and lack thereof. I do see hope, as it seems to me, even he's getting sick of Jim Steele's hypocritical garbage mouth lately. %-P Of Recursive Fury, SkepticForum and science denialist's strategy of harassment http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/03/recursivefury-skepticforum-tactics.html

I haven’t been back since my first encounter there, global warming is a complete mind(you know what) and after pointing that out I didn’t see much point in hanging around.

...whereas I'm looking towards learning and resolution - and am getting really sick of the endless regurgitation of lies being consider a fair part of the "debate"...
I was watching some episodes of "Our Bleeped Up Brains" recently, and recall the point that we humans tend to believe things that we hear often enough. This is a tactic that the "conservatives" have been using extraordinarily successfully for some time now. Anyone who provides a forum for endlessly regurgitated lies is doing a dis-service to mankind, as our brains tend to give credence to such lies if we hear them stated as "truth" often enough. Also, in a debate forum, there is the problem of a false sense of equivalency. e.g., Bill Nye debated some nut bag about Creationism. The Creationist, no doubt, got a boost in status, as viewed by some, simply by being paired in a debate with someone of Nye's status. If you want to have a fair debate about AGW, for example, you would need to present, at least 97 climate scientist opinions for every 3 opinions by the foremost AGW deniers.
If you want to have a fair debate about AGW, for example, you would need to present, at least 97 climate scientist opinions for every 3 opinions by the foremost AGW deniers.
Good idea. Hey, lookie here, just what you were suggesting :cheese:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg Published on May 11, 2014 John Oliver hosts a mathematically representative climate change debate, with the help of special guest Bill Nye the Science Guy, of course.
If you want to have a fair debate about AGW, for example, you would need to present, at least 97 climate scientist opinions for every 3 opinions by the foremost AGW deniers.
Good idea. Hey, lookie here, just what you were suggesting :cheese:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg Published on May 11, 2014 John Oliver hosts a mathematically representative climate change debate, with the help of special guest Bill Nye the Science Guy, of course.
Very funny and bang on, it makes you realize just how utterly ridiculous global warming denial truly is. Thanks CC.
If you want to have a fair debate about AGW, for example, you would need to present, at least 97 climate scientist opinions for every 3 opinions by the foremost AGW deniers.
Good idea. Hey, lookie here, just what you were suggesting :cheese:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg Published on May 11, 2014 John Oliver hosts a mathematically representative climate change debate, with the help of special guest Bill Nye the Science Guy, of course.
I wanted to reply to this with one word. But I seem to be having an acute case of anomic aphasia. The term that I cannot retrieve from my brain, or even find on the bleeping internet, roughly refers to "similar scientific thinking that arises independently to become accepted thought across populations". I think it is a German word, and I think it starts with a "g", but I am not sure. HELP!?

Gestalt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt

Gestalt? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt
No, but thanks for trying. I am now obsessed with trying to think of the word.

Here’s a little broadside across Steele’s bow, let me know what you think.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=23423&p=407524#p407524

Gestalt? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt
No, but thanks for trying. I am now obsessed with trying to think of the word. My poor brain finally retrieved the word I was looking for. Sorry, it starts with a "z", not a "g". And my definition wasn't all that great either. The word was ... (drumroll)... Zeitgeist. (Perhaps I should be taking folic acid supplements to address my anomia.)
Here's a little broadside across Steele's bow, let me know what you think. http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=23423&p=407524#p407524
Sad to say they showed you the worm hole.
JIm Steele: You are building a straw dog. My skepticism is based on multiple prongs of evidence supporting natural cycles, or in the lack thereof supporting CO2 predictions.
says the master of straw men building.
Post #76 Postby JIm Steele » Sun May 25, 2014 5:15 pm Most the CO2 advocates here like to feign scientific integrity, then set off Sagan's baloney alert by smearing the arguers and avoiding the arguments. It appears as if we have a cloned battalion of internet snipers trying to assassinate the character of anyone who dares to challenge the alarmists' facade. Fuzzy logic ask for real skepticism then replies to the mountain of evidence by trying to link Curry to a Big Oil conspiracy. Then their true schizophrenia eventually shows when they then attack skeptics by parroting Lewandosky's charge of "conspiracy ideation" So transparent!
How to short circuit their Gish Gallop, and bring it back to the important known basics - now that's the real challenge to chew on... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gish Gallop Here's an essay worth thinking on. The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44 http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm The Relativity of Wrong By Isaac Asimov ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ My work projects have been piling up so I'm not doing that much these days, staying away from SKEP since they just piss me off and I'm off and running on another project I don't have the time for. Besides your - "CornwallAlliance - for stewardship of creation - An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" tip has me sort of paralyzed - I've written a response, but am sitting on it rather than tossing it up right away as is my usual habit. - Coming face to face with that proud disconnect from our planet is a bit overwhelming when trying to absorb it. Just like the colorblind person can't image what it's like to admire a rainbow - a person who's got full color vision can't imagine the drab existence of folks who are total blind to the colors of our Earthly existence.
Zeitgeist.
"Weltanshauing" is another one of those German beauties. http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/17908/whats-the-difference-between-weltanschauung-and-worldview Oh gosh and I thought I was familiar with Zeitgeist, but I was just scratching the surface
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist Zeitgeist theory and leadership As mentioned, zeitgeist theory of leadership is often contrasted with Thomas Carlyle’s great man theory.[5] In his theory, Carlyle stresses that leaders do not become leaders by fate or accident. Instead, these individuals possess characteristics of great leaders and these characteristics allow them to obtain positions of power. However, Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy disagreed with Carlyle’s perspective.[5] Tolstoy believed that leadership, like other things, was a "zeitgeist" and was a product of the social circumstances at the time. Thus, it was not the characteristics of the individual that resulted in a leadership, but societal factors of the time that are out of the individuals’ control. Great man theory and zeitgeist theory can be included in two main areas of thought in psychology.[5] For instance, great man theory is very similar to the trait approach. . . . and so on and so forth...
Zeitgeist.
"Weltanshauing" is another one of those German beauties. http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/17908/whats-the-difference-between-weltanschauung-and-worldview Oh gosh and I thought I was familiar with Zeitgeist, but I was just scratching the surface
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist Zeitgeist theory and leadership As mentioned, zeitgeist theory of leadership is often contrasted with Thomas Carlyle’s great man theory.[5] In his theory, Carlyle stresses that leaders do not become leaders by fate or accident. Instead, these individuals possess characteristics of great leaders and these characteristics allow them to obtain positions of power. However, Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy disagreed with Carlyle’s perspective.[5] Tolstoy believed that leadership, like other things, was a "zeitgeist" and was a product of the social circumstances at the time. Thus, it was not the characteristics of the individual that resulted in a leadership, but societal factors of the time that are out of the individuals’ control. Great man theory and zeitgeist theory can be included in two main areas of thought in psychology.[5] For instance, great man theory is very similar to the trait approach. . . . and so on and so forth...
I would definitely lean toward Tolstoy's view.

I’m a little concerned with the Tolstoy view. If it’s the “product of the social circumstances at the time” it would seem that there would be many “great leaders” occurring then. I also don’t think the general public has even the slightest ability to recognize a great leader. Rather, they respond to an individual’s charisma, much less to his/her leadership skills.
Occam

I'm a little concerned with the Tolstoy view. If it's the "product of the social circumstances at the time" it would seem that there would be many "great leaders" occurring then. I also don't think the general public has even the slightest ability to recognize a great leader. Rather, they respond to an individual's charisma, much less to his/her leadership skills. Occam
Everyone makes decisions because of the social circumstances of the time, and millions of other factors we have no control over--including our genes, experience and other environmental factors. We like to think we collect information, sift through it and come up with intelligent ideas. But not one of us can actually assess anyone's leadership skills, or anything else. It's ALL based on emotion and instinct. Lois
I'm a little concerned with the Tolstoy view. If it's the "product of the social circumstances at the time" it would seem that there would be many "great leaders" occurring then. I also don't think the general public has even the slightest ability to recognize a great leader. Rather, they respond to an individual's charisma, much less to his/her leadership skills. Occam
One of the most extraordinary examples of someone who rose to leadership, in modern times, is Adolph Hitler. He was very charismatic (which supports your argument on this). However, I would counter that Hitler would not have risen to power, as he did, were it not for the social circumstances of the times in Germany. Also, he may not have even been personally, as motivated as he was, were it not for the social conditions in Germany. Furthermore, when he, so aggressively tried to expand his power to effect other societies, he eventually became an icon of the greatest failure of leadership in modern times. His charisma did not support his effective leadership, when the social conditions of the broader world were brought in to play.