info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Consensus Ruins Science
60 views
Skip to first unread message
Claudius Denk
Jan 18, 2017, 8:24:57 PM1/18/17
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 4:44:34 PM UTC-8, Claudius Denk wrote:
> It's not the right question. The right question is why is so much of
science deliberately dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator
of poorly educated science consumer?
>
> The answer is because humans have a deep-seated emotional need to believe
they understand their world and there is a lot of money to be made
fulfilling that need. And since most science consumers don't have the time
or the education to put much effort into it, the most money can be made
giving these poorly educated science consumers excuses for why they don't
actually have to literally understand it. And so--for reasons of fiscal
necessity--many sciences have dumbed down their models to go with the flow
of what people want to believe. Everybody has sat in their car, windows
closed, on a hot day. Therefore everybody will find it easy to believe that
CO2 traps heat, hence the greenhouse effect. Everybody has seen a pot
boiling on a stove produce a mushroom cloud of vapor, like a thunderstorm.
Therefore everybody will find it easy to believe the water in the atmosphere
acts the same way, hence the convection model of storm theory.
>
> One consequence of this is that certain assumptions that are associated
with the models have to be concealed, ignored, or effectively dismissed.
And it is for this reason that there are certain concepts in every
discipline that are, literally, taboo. You won't find a meteorologist
willing to field questions about or participating in a discussion about the
implications of the fact that the boiling temperature of H2O is much higher
than that in the ambient environment, as Mcginn is suggesting. You won't
find a climatologists willing to discuss the known fact that the overall
thermal effect of CO2 on the atmosphere is miniscule compared to H2O.
>
> CD
> It's not the right question. The right question is why is so much of
science deliberately dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator
of poorly educated science consumer?
>
> The answer is because humans have a deep-seated emotional need to believe
they understand their world and there is a lot of money to be made
fulfilling that need. And since most science consumers don't have the time
or the education to put much effort into it, the most money can be made
giving these poorly educated science consumers excuses for why they don't
actually have to literally understand it. And so--for reasons of fiscal
necessity--many sciences have dumbed down their models to go with the flow
of what people want to believe. Everybody has sat in their car, windows
closed, on a hot day. Therefore everybody will find it easy to believe that
CO2 traps heat, hence the greenhouse effect. Everybody has seen a pot
boiling on a stove produce a mushroom cloud of vapor, like a thunderstorm.
Therefore everybody will find it easy to believe the water in the atmosphere
acts the same way, hence the convection model of storm theory.
>
> One consequence of this is that certain assumptions that are associated
with the models have to be concealed, ignored, or effectively dismissed.
And it is for this reason that there are certain concepts in every
discipline that are, literally, taboo. You won't find a meteorologist
willing to field questions about or participating in a discussion about the
implications of the fact that the boiling temperature of H2O is much higher
than that in the ambient environment, as Mcginn is suggesting. You won't
find a climatologists willing to discuss the known fact that the overall
thermal effect of CO2 on the atmosphere is miniscule compared to H2O.
>
> CD
James McGinn
Jan 21, 2017, 1:07:27 AM1/21/17
to
kjk
Claudius Denk
Jan 21, 2017, 1:01:08 PM1/21/17
to
James McGinn
Jan 30, 2017, 10:53:34 AM1/30/17
to
Claudius Denk
May 1, 2017, 3:47:02 AM5/1/17
to
Claudius Denk
Jul 13, 2017, 2:31:25 AM7/13/17
to
Claudius Denk
Jul 24, 2017, 6:42:55 PM7/24/17
to
Claudius Denk
Jul 27, 2017, 6:32:47 PM7/27/17
to
James McGinn
Jul 27, 2017, 8:38:07 PM7/27/17
to
James McGinn
Jul 28, 2017, 3:12:57 AM7/28/17
to
Claudius Denk
Jul 31, 2017, 10:52:09 PM7/31/17
to
James McGinn
Aug 1, 2017, 7:23:46 PM8/1/17
to
0 new messages