OT: Is science democratic? Oligarchic?
Augustine
global warming, of the necessity of "the consensus of opinion of
experts" in science. This raises some questions.
Is science democratic? The "consensus of opinion" part of his
panegyric seems to propose such a democratic theory of science. But we
can't overlook the second part: it's a consensus only of experts. Is
science thus not democratic, but oligarchic? And do facts depend on
any consensus? Of course not. Are we then not dealing with facts, but
with their interpretation and the relative political propriety of
competing interpretations? In short, when it comes to global warming
and the hegemonic interpretation, are we not dealing with science at
all, but with ideology (ideology here defined as any system of thought
which attempts to mold facts to its agenda, rather than its agenda to
facts)? Is it any accident that a politician, not a scientist, is the
leading spokesman for this interpretation?
Tommy Grand
> Is science thus not democratic, but oligarchic?
Not too long ago, science was indeed oligarchic -- nay plutocratic,
for he who owned the printing press owned scientific truth. But with
the advent of web 2.0 and social media, I'm starting to see some
"green shoots" of true scientific democray. See here, for example:
http://www.starchildproject.com/
Tommy Grand
Augustine
Wild!
Slogoin
>
> Is science democratic?
The Earth goes around the sun and not the other way around, as most
religions taught. That's democracy since you are free to learn from
this how faulty our "common sense" can be or ignore the enlightenment
science offers in this example and go back to believing everything
you're told by some authority of your choice.
Augustine
Sorry Lare, but I'm looking for input from those with scientific
credentials.
Tommy Grand
> The Earth goes around the sun and not the other way around, as most
> religions taught.
Get over it already!
Tashi
Yet, if you are honest, and have your feet firmly planted on the
ground, you will notice the sun goes around the earth.
Tashi
No Jackson it's not wild, it's remarkable.
Augustine
> No Jackson it's not wild, it's remarkable.
But I did remark on it.
ktaylor
I studied a significant amount of meteorology and climatology in
college about 30 years ago and I worked in a meteorological lab as a
student for many months. The technology has come a long way since
then. One thing that disturbs me though about this debate is that
there are many meteorological facts that are agreed upon 100% by all
meteorologists. However even among scientists there is still great
debate about 1) the relative temperature of the climate and what a
global increase or decrease would mean at any given data point and 2)
whether any positive or negative variance is, or even could be, due to
human action. Political forces have entered this debate and in the
process have debased science and scientists, as it usually does. Those
who argue one way are tools of the energy industry (and oil industry
is certainly funding research in the matter) and those who argue
another way rely on funding from those who promote state expansion
(and that funding outweighs the oil industries funding by about 10 to
1.) If you are a believer in MMGW and have beachfront property and are
worried, sell. If you are not a believer, it may be a buyers market
down at the gulf where the fishing is good and the oysters are edible
(at least until May).
Because MMGW is now a belief set. It ceases to be less in the category
of science,and more in that of religion (since it now has an
eschatology and an ethic). So bind this thread and others like it with
our Muslim, Christian and UFOologist evangelists and lets not talk of
science.
Kevin T.
Slogoin
>
> Get over it already!
Nothing to get over TG. Quite the opposite. Don't you find it
amazing to think how long humans have held this flipped perception of
the world they occupy?
I use these examples since they are no longer disputed like ETs in
UFOs.
I have had the pleasure of teaching a number of people, mostly
kids, some of the basics of the night sky. One of the most memorable
was when a neighbor and I were looking up and I mentioned that the
star was a red giant and another blue star. He said that was the first
time he had noticed that stars came in different colors.
How can anybody gaze at the night sky and not be stunned by the
knowledge of what we are looking at and how much there is out there to
learn about thanks to science?
Slogoin
>
> Yet, if you are honest, and have your feet firmly planted on the
> ground, you will notice the sun goes around the earth.
While you are under the influence of too much wine the room may
appear to spin around you too. Honesty has nothing to do with it and
neither does common sense.
Steven Bornfeld
Science tends to do much better with assessing what was and what is and
how it got that way than it is with prognostication. See (for example)
prognostications about the H1N1 virus and what MIGHT happen. We can
prepare for a worst-case scenario, but those darned confounding factors
keep coming in to foul up our predictions.
This is no rap on science. It's always easier to measure what is, and
harder to measure what might be.
Steve
ktaylor
wrote:
True. There is one thing that is certain about the theory of man-made
global warming: creating political structures based upon it will limit
personal freedom by politicizing all energy usage and have an overall
deleterious effect on the fecundity of the economy that assumes those
structures.
Kevin T.
Tashi
Larry, the Ancients figured this stuff out eons ago. They just put
it in a language you can't understand. We all know, what Larry can't
understand, Larry doesn't accept.
Tashi
Are you saying from ones perspective standing on the ground watching
the sun revolve around the earth, is equal to being drunk?
Richard Yates
Could be, but what's the alternative?
"politicizing all energy usage" is a meaningless phrase. Politics, without
the common connotations associated with the term, is about power, meaning:
who decides. The fact is that somebody will decide. The decisions can be
made by every individual trying to get the most he can and maximizing the
tragedy of the commons, or it can be made by a more centralized process. So
"politicizing" - absent the derogatory slant - isn't the problem. The
problem is the actual decisions that get made. The decisions will doom us
or save us. And it looks like, if no centralized decisions are made, we are
in big trouble.
Slogoin
>
> Larry, the Ancients figured this stuff out eons ago.
Yeah, MT, we heard you the first time you said this nonsense about
maths. Since you don't know either field it's no wonder you think
there's nothing more to learn.
> They just put it in a language you can't understand.
So now you are an expert in ancient and modern sciences and you
are proud that you don't know maths but you see no problem with those
two claims in the same person... amazing.
Tashi
Larry, why do you always try and assert your superiority over others
by pulling the "Maths" card? Is it because you never finished High
School and have been abused all your life by smart people?
So far, I have seen only innuendo, accompanied by broad sweeping
statements categorizing all who don't share your version of reality as
being crazy.
For the record I think you are NUTS, in a harmless sorta way.
ktaylor
I agree with your first part: politics is about who decides. But your
doomsday scenario is based upon a hypothesis that is not proven
conclusively, is debated among meteorologists, climatologists and
those familiar with geo-physic fluid dynamics and is the topic of this
thread. There is increasing data that we are in a period of cooling,
that there is no increased presence of carbon dioxide in the upper
atmosphere (a compelling argument for MMGW) and the parallel existence
of heating-cooling of atmospheres on other planets in our solar system
cast serious doubt about the fact that this phenomenon, if it exists,
should be subject to centralized decisions at all. We really don't
know whether there is MMGW and its potential doom. But we do know the
probable doom for individuals under a system of centralized economic
planning and those who would use a doomsday scenario to take control
of the means of production.
Which is potentially worse for individuals on a grand scale: a
hypothetical world-wide rise in temperatures of 2 degrees or
politically controlled energy production and use that has demonstrated
no evidence that it could effect the atmospheric climate one whit, but
severely damper the praexeological climate of all who labor under it?
Kevin T.
roofus
I doubt that it was only religious folk that believe some false things
about the cosmos. They didn't have the tools that we have. Today's
view will perhaps look quite incomplete to a scientist in 200 years.
Slogoin
>
> Larry, why do you always try and assert your superiority over others
> by pulling the "Maths" card?
Wooosh!
I'll repost this part of Will's recent post:
"One can take a scientific approach and still be a poor scientist,
because
good science also requires knowledge of relevant mathematics,
scientific facts, and theories."
Of course you don't accept that Will knows more about maths and
science than you because you separate them, missing the fact that
understanding the numbers actually matters in ALL the sciences.
Fortunately the basic maths needed to understand basic sciences are
not that difficult and can be acquired the same way as learning to
read and write language or music - hard work.
Tommy Grand
> understanding the numbers actually matters in ALL the sciences.
Even Library Science?
Tashi
I have never stated I know more about maths than Clinger, he knows
infinitely more on the subject than I. However like Clinger said.
"One can take a scientific approach and still be a poor scientist.''
Larry, Clinger is not a scientist, you are not a scientist, and I am
not a scientist. The three of us must therefore rely on scientists,
we are free to pick and choose.
BTW, Einstein was a patent clerk, I don't think he would qualify
under Clingers rigorous standards.
Richard Yates
Gotta learn your Dewey Decimals.
Richard Yates
> Which is potentially worse for individuals on a grand scale: a
> hypothetical world-wide rise in temperatures of 2 degrees or
> politically controlled energy production and use that has demonstrated
> no evidence that it could effect the atmospheric climate one whit, but
> severely damper the praexeological climate of all who labor under it?
> Kevin T.
A straw-man and a false choice rolled into one.
Richard Yates
> Which is potentially worse for individuals on a grand scale: a
> hypothetical world-wide rise in temperatures of 2 degrees or
> politically controlled energy production and use that has demonstrated
> no evidence that it could effect the atmospheric climate one whit, but
> severely damper the praexeological climate of all who labor under it?
> Kevin T.
A false choice if there ever was one.
Brad Anders
> BTW, Einstein was a patent clerk, I don't think he would qualify
> under Clingers rigorous standards.
Yet, even as a patent clerk working independently (not in association
with any lab or university), Einstein was able to submit a series of
seminal papers on thermodynamics, special relativity, and
photoemission, that were peer-reviewed and accepted by major journals.
Many of these submissions challenged the consensus views and were
roundly debated in the years to come. Not such a bad system, eh?
Brad Anders
Slogoin
>
> > Wooosh!
> > Of course you don't accept that Will knows more about maths and
> > science than you because you separate them, missing the fact that
> > understanding the numbers actually matters in ALL the sciences.
> I have never stated I know more about maths than Clinger, he knows
> infinitely more on the subject than I.
As I predicted... woooosh! You missed it completely.
MATH AND SCIENCE ARE NOT SEPARATE THINGS!
I figure you must be getting deef or sumpin'.
> Larry, Clinger is not a scientist
Says you, who are proud you doesn't know basic maths but believes
that has no impact on your ability to understand a wide range of
sciences as diverse as astronomy, chemistry, geology, biology and
physics . Did you pass that meme on to your progeny?
Steven Bornfeld
We shall not argue this, but I doubt that energy production has not been
politically controlled in our lifetimes--probably many lifetimes. Just
a question of whose political control. ;-)
S.
Brad Anders
What strikes me as interesting is that Tashi is an accomplished
luthier, a profession that benefits from and depends on a vast array
of science and math. Acoustics, statics, material science, general
physics, calculus, chemistry, and many more. While you don't have to
be an expert in all of these areas to apply them to the work of the
luthier, being able to interpret them and having working knowledge
would be of benefit. I find it very hard to believe that Tashi
"doesn't know basic maths" or lacks a good understanding of the areas
of study that relate to his profession.
Brad Anders
Augustine
This was really just another excuse to use the words "maths." Right?
roofus
Demonstrate, demonstrate. No one around here goes for the argument
from authority.
Augustine
ktaylor
I think that is precisely the choice we face and that may be voted
into law soon. The cap & trade bill has, as its foundation, the
hypothesis of MMGW. Since a large (and growing) percentage of
meteorologists disagree with the models' foundations, data and results
would it not be wiser to wait at least until there is a consensus
among scientists that is similar in scope to, say, the consensus
regarding the adiabatic process? Once the law and system based upon
this convenient hypothesis is in place with its obvious negative
affects on everyone except politicians, it will be harder to change
than sun spots.
Kevin T.
Brad Anders
> Friends, is Richard Dawkins engaged in scientific inquiry here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtV22JPjmsk
Very interesting discussion, in spite of the unnecessary
editorializing.
Brad Anders
Tommy Grand
> disagree with the models' foundations, data and results
> would it not be wiser to wait at least until there is a consensus
Hey that's just how I felt about the Bush tax cuts!
Richard Yates
>Did you pass that meme on to your progeny?
Since memetics is about cultural transmission rather than biological
transmission, WE are potentially his progeny. (Have you had your vaccine?)
Richard Yates
A year ago I ventured the same puzzlement regarding adapting behavior and
designs as the result of evidence. It did not go well.
Slogoin
> Slogoin wrote:
> >Did you pass that meme on to your progeny?
>
> Since memetics is about cultural transmission rather than biological
> transmission, WE are potentially his progeny.
You got it, and the meme of memes.
> (Have you had your vaccine?)
Some have said that some of the memes of science may act as a
vaccine against certain kinds of "common sense" fallacies. If you look
at RMCG posts it seems to hold true.
Richard Yates
> We shall not argue this, but I doubt that energy production has not
> been politically controlled in our lifetimes--probably many
> lifetimes. Just a question of whose political control. ;-)
> S.
Yes.
Also, the complexities of climate change issues tend to encourage all of us
to oversimplify and assume more simplistic beliefs in others. The most
fundamental one is "What (if anything) should be done?" versus "Who should
decide what (if anything) should be done?" There is some overlap between
these, that is, those with one view of the first tend to line up as to the
second. But it's not a complete correlation at all. Similarly, the first
question breaks down into several smaller ones with some (but not perfect)
correlation.
Based on my incomplete and inexpert knowledge here's how I stand today:
1) Is the climate warming rapidly over the span of decades? Beyond any
reasonable doubt.
2) Is it caused by human activities? Mostly, although the exact proportion
is not known precisely.
3) Can changing how we produce and consume energy reverse or arrest or even
slow global warming? Here I really have not heard compelling evidence.
There are many established mechanisms in the warming that involve positive
feedback loops. These loops suggest the real possibility of a tipping point
and we could be well past that point already.
4) If the answer to 3) is "Yes," is the necessary global cooperation and
coordination that would be necessary to actually do it possible? Here my
doubts are very strong.
Since I lean pretty heavily toward 1) and 2), but have more skepticism
about 3) and lots more about 4), I think the best use of resources is
toward adaptation to the likely changes. Adaptation can be on individual,
local, and national levels so it doesn't require concentrating the decision
making power in one place. And in the meantime, we should keep looking for
better evidence to decide on 3) and 4).
Anyone else want to weigh in on these four (instead of battling with
links)?
Augustine
Augustine
> Friends, read The Skeptical Environmentalist. Devastating.
Also see:
Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming,
again by Bjorn Lomborg.
Steven Bornfeld
I tend to agree with you on all 4 (despite the charm of blaming cow
shit for #3). But what do I know--I'm making my political opinions up
based on all the same imperfect data everyone else has. As David I.
would say, "that's the breaks".
Steve
roofus
I think that point is that it is wise to apply critical thinking
versus just going with the "centralized decisions".
Tommy Grand
> 2) Is it caused by human activities? Mostly, although the exact proportion
> is not known precisely.
False. Mostly solar activity. See:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the
warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the
increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.
Now Richard, admit once and for all that you get your scientific
education from 20/20!
Slogoin
>
> Anyone else want to weigh in on these four (instead of battling with links)?
Your tipping point may be the only thing that matters. Too many
babies and no end in sight.
Richard Yates
> On Nov 23, 2:41 pm, "Richard Yates" <rich...@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
>
>
>> 2) Is it caused by human activities? Mostly, although the exact
>> proportion is not known precisely.
>
> False. Mostly solar activity. See:
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
>
> "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the
> warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the
> increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.
To start with, while he notes a three year increase in Mars temperature,
he cites no evidence or reasoning to support the opinion of a only a "small
contribution." Second, it is an odd turn of phrase to say that one "cannot
compete with" the other. What does that mean? They both operate in the
ssame direction.
Further, your link continues with this: ""His views are completely at odds
with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary
physicist at England's Oxford University. "And they contradict the
extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change] report." Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the
University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported
by the theory or by the observations."
Richard Yates
Sell, there is always a Modest Proposal for the Inconvenient Truth.
Slogoin
>
> Sell, there is always a Modest Proposal for the Inconvenient Truth.
Augustine
Is the concept of "memes" scientific?
Augustine
> Too many
> babies and no end in sight.
Ah yes, thus speaks the culture of death. You'll be pleased to know
that Europe is committing demographic suicide.
Augustine
> "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion,"
Thus you too would have rejected Copernicus and Galileo?
dsi1
We got booted out of the garden because we ate the fruit of the tree of
knowledge. Now we come to find that as far as knowledge goes, it's
mostly low grade, superficial stuff ranging from silly: we're naked, to
awful: we're all gonna die! It seems that the true human condition is
that we're never to know what's really going on. Perfect knowledge
escapes us - we was gypped, man!
This does not stop those who peddle their knowledge as prime grade
material. They'll oversell it all to hell with words like "devastating"
and "absolute proof." That's the breaks. :-)
>
> Steve
Augustine
"They believed in knowledge without believing in truth. A similar
phenomenon has recurred since in the history of thought and on a far
larger scale."
Such is the dictatorship of relativism.
See:
http://www.amazon.com/Are-You-Educated-or-Processed/lm/R1FN409ANXUA0U
Slogoin
>
> Is the concept of "memes" scientific?
Memes it seems are dreams woven into the fabric of our collective
mind. Dreams of flying are no longer fantasy.
dsi1
>
> "They believed in knowledge without believing in truth. A similar
> phenomenon has recurred since in the history of thought and on a far
> larger scale."
>
> Such is the dictatorship of relativism.
>
> See:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Are-You-Educated-or-Processed/lm/R1FN409ANXUA0U
Would you say that this here is your prime grade truth? I don't want no
semi-truths or half-assed proofs, it's gotta be absolute and/or
devastating or I'm not clickin! I've been burned on these links before...
Richard Yates
Personally, I'm gonna start asking for a deposit first. (PayPal accepted to
this email address).
dsi1
Please excuse my jaded attitude and "blowing off steam" but it's always
the same with these sales guys - it's "the absolute truth!" and "it's
the real proof!" and then when we get it's not! There should be a Better
Truth Bureau where we can report people that misrepresent the truth and
use unethical bait and switch tactics. Wadda ya gonna do? :-)
Augustine
Most unscientific. Many thanks.
Augustine
> Please excuse my jaded attitude and "blowing off steam" but it's always
> the same with these sales guys - it's "the absolute truth!"
Plato, The Republic (560d-561d), on the formation of the democratic
man:
"[N]aming shame simplicity, they push it out with dishonor, a
fugitive; calling moderation cowardliness and spattering it with mud,
they banish it; persuading that measure and orderly expenditure are
rustic and illiberal, they join with many useless desires in driving
them over the frontier....
"[T]hey proceed to return insolence, anarchy, wastefulness, and
shamelessness from exile, in a blaze of light, crowned and accompanied
by a numerous chorus, extolling and flattering them by calling
insolence good education; anarchy, freedom; wastefulness,
magnificence; and shamelessness, courage....
"And he doesn't admit true speech or let it pass into the guardhouse,
if someone says that there are some pleasures belonging to fine and
good desires and some belonging to bad desires, and that the ones must
be practiced and honored and the others checked and enslaved. Rather,
he shakes his head at all this and says that all are alike and must be
honored on an equal basis....
"Then, he also lives along day by day, gratifying the desire that
occurs to him, at one time drinking and listening to the flute, at
another downing water and reducing; now practicing gymnastic, and
again idling and neglecting everything; and sometimes spending his
time as though he were occupied with philosophy. Often he engages in
politics and, jumping up, says and does whatever chances to come to
him; and if he ever admires any soldiers, he turns in that direction;
and if it's money-makers, in that one. And there is neither order nor
necessity in his life, but calling this life sweet, free, and blessed
he follows it throughout."
dsi1
Ho ho ho. Ya koo tocha ka poonoo nee sok nyee!
Richard Jernigan
Of course, it was the Roman Catholic Church, not the scientific
community who rejected Copernicus and Galileo.
Copernicus' publication of his heliocentric cosmology, just before his
death, excited little scientific controversy. After all, it was just
another theory, with no definitive data to support it. Nonetheless,
heliocentrism was vigorously attacked by churchmen.
Galileo observed Jupiter's four biggest moons orbiting the planet in
1610, invalidating all the geocentric theories then current. In 1611
he visited Rome to demonstrate his telescopes. In the meantime Clavius
had reproduced Galileo's rersults. In 1611 in Rome, Galileo was
inducted into the Accademia dei Lincei, a high honor, not a rejection
by the scientific community.
Galileo's subsequent observation of the phases of Venus, categorically
proving that Venus rotated around the sun, provoked a reaction from
Cardinal Bellarmino. Galileo was admonished to abandon the
heliocentric theory, but no further action was taken against him.
Far from being rejected, the Copernican cosmology led to the work of
Kepler who correctly determined the mathematical form of the planetary
orbits. This occurred during Galileo's lifetime. This led led
directly to Newtron's gravitational computation of the orbits of the
planets and the moon, and the consequent great advance in
understanding that physical law was expressed in mathematics.
At the time of Galileo's publication of "The Dialogue Concerning the
Two Chief World Systems" the Pope was a Medici from Galileo's home,
Florence. The Medici had been quite supportive of Galileo, and were
concerned that the Catholic south of Europe not be perceived as
backward relative to the more scientifically advanced north. However
the Medici Pope died soon after. At the instigation of the subsequent
Pope, Galileo fell into the clutches of the Holy Office--the rest is
history.
John Paul II finally apologized, more than three centuries later.
Galileo was confined to house arrest in the year my ancestors came to
America. The house at Jernigan's Bridge in tidewater Virginia is still
inhabited by the eldest son of the eldest son. Its main rooms were
built during Galileo's house arrest-- after Kepler's determined the
planetary orbits with the sun at the focus of each ellipse.
So it was the Church who rejected Galileo and Copernicus, not the
scientific community.
RNJ
Augustine
I wonder whether you're aware that the Roman Catholic Church is the
greatest single contributor to the rise of modern science, and that
Galileo's rise as a scientist was not in spite of, but because of,
said Church. An astonishing, heretical claim for processed modern
minds, I know, but please see:
and
William D Clinger
rejected by their scientific peers, Richard Jernigan
posted an argument filled with verifiable facts:
Galileo's discoveries of the telescope, the moons of
Jupiter, the phases of Venus, Kepler's mathematics,
Galileo's induction into the Accademia dei Lincei.
The church apologist with little knowledge of science
or its history responded with two links that knock down
straw men without even addressing the apologist's claim
that Copernicus and Galileo were rejected by mainstream
scientists of their time. As though to emphasize his
ignorance, the apologist added yet another claim that
is not supported by his links: "that Galileo's rise as
a scientist was not in spite of, but because of, said
Church."
Related news: The sun appeared to rise in the east this
morning.
Will
Tommy Grand
Why all this focus on Galileo, and not the things the Church has
*rightly* condemned. Adultery, murder, etc?
John LaCroix
>
> Based on my incomplete and inexpert knowledge here's how I stand today:
>
> 1) Is the climate warming rapidly over the span of decades? Beyond any
> reasonable doubt.
I am back on the fence on this one. I do believe humans have an
impact, but I question to what degree. There
is ample evidence that in earlier times (geologic timescale) there was
much more C02 in the atmosphere and the
the mean temperature of the earth was much warmer than today. The C02
was sequestered, earth cooled, now it's getting warmer again. I wonder
if it would be getting warmer without the last 200 years of carbon
burning human activity, and if so what the net effect of the last 200
years of such activity is. I haven't read anything that has totally
convinced me.
>
> 2) Is it caused by human activities? Mostly, although the exact proportion
> is not known precisely.
>
To some degree, certainly. I worry that MMGW might be just a cause de-
jour. What happened to that ozone hole over the Antarctic? At one time
that was an impending catastrophe if I remember correctly, now you
never hear of it.
> 3) Can changing how we produce and consume energy reverse or arrest or even
> slow global warming? Here I really have not heard compelling evidence.
> There are many established mechanisms in the warming that involve positive
> feedback loops. These loops suggest the real possibility of a tipping point
> and we could be well past that point already.
>
Can we? Yes. Will we? Probably not. The decision makers are
politicians and such decisions require the concensus of many competing
stakeholders. At the levels of local government, such comprimises
often take a long time to arrive and are frequently watered down. To
address these issues in an international arena is going to take longer
and ultimately accomplish less. In effect, we cruise toward your
tipping point and if we are lucky will get to tap the breaks a couple
of times.
> 4) If the answer to 3) is "Yes," is the necessary global cooperation and
> coordination that would be necessary to actually do it possible? Here my
> doubts are very strong.
>
I agree with you completely here and your doubts are well founded.
> Since I lean pretty heavily toward 1) and 2), but have more skepticism
> about 3) and lots more about 4), I think the best use of resources is
> toward adaptation to the likely changes. Adaptation can be on individual,
> local, and national levels so it doesn't require concentrating the decision
> making power in one place. And in the meantime, we should keep looking for
> better evidence to decide on 3) and 4).
>
That is the role of science, INMO - to accumulate 'data' until this
data can be interpreted as 'evidence'. The tricky part is resisting to
jump to conclusions based on incomplete 'data'. All sides will take
'data' and have their own camp of biased observers interpreted into
'evidence' to support their political argument. The hard part is
figuring out when you have accumulated enough 'data' to make a
resonable determination.
> Anyone else want to weigh in on these four (instead of battling with
> links)?
John L.
John LaCroix
I don't really think the 'culture of death' matters here. There always
remains the fact that we live on a planet with finite resources. There
is only so much land, food production potential, and energy. I'm sure
there is an equation somewhere that predicts how much life can be
supported given the resources. When you have a famine or natural
disaster, people die. Globalization can mitigate the effects by
transfering resources from one locatoiin to another, but ultimately
what happens when there are no resources to transfer? Unless we find
a way to get more resources (space colonization, etc.) the system is
in effect self containing. All of Europe can commit suicide tomorrow
and I doubt the impact would be much over the long haul.
John L.
John LaCroix
>
> "They believed in knowledge without believing in truth. A similar
> phenomenon has recurred since in the history of thought and on a far
> larger scale."
>
Sure is happening today - its called the internet. Lots of
information, with a high noise ratio...
John LaCroix
>
> Far from being rejected, the Copernican cosmology led to the work of
> Kepler who correctly determined the mathematical form of the planetary
> orbits. This occurred during Galileo's lifetime. This led led
> directly to Newtron's gravitational computation of the orbits of the
> planets and the moon, and the consequent great advance in
> understanding that physical law was expressed in mathematics.
>
And don't forget Tycho Brahe, who accumulated all of the data Kepler
used (Kepler was his assistant) and worked on the theory...
William D Clinger
> To some degree, certainly. I worry that MMGW might be just a cause de-
> jour. What happened to that ozone hole over the Antarctic? At one time
> that was an impending catastrophe if I remember correctly, now you
> never hear of it.
The Montreal Protocol of 1989 reduced the production of
CFCs. The most harmful CFCs were completely phased out
by 1996. Production of other CFCs will end by 2030.
As a result, atmospheric concentrations of CFCs have
stabilized and are beginning to drop. The ozone layer
is expected to recover by mid-century.
The Montreal Protocol's success in halting stratospheric
ozone depletion is held up as a model by advocates of
coordinated government action on AGW.
Will
Richard Yates
Or Girodano Bruno. Do you suppose Jackson will explain to us that Bruno's
"rise as a scientist was not in spite of, but because of, said
Church." I mean, literally you could say that was true.
Tashi
> Pointing out that neither Copernicus nor Galileo were
> rejected by their scientific peers, Richard Jernigan
> posted an argument filled with verifiable facts:
> Galileo's discoveries of the telescope, the moons of
> Jupiter, the phases of Venus, Kepler's mathematics,
> Galileo's induction into the Accademia dei Lincei.
Yes while Galilieo and Copernicus were busy having their discoveries
sanctioned by the Catholic Church. We could look further back in
history to see that the Vedic culture, and the Mayans, had known this
for millenniums.
They both have more precise measurements of the precession of the
equinox than the west. This motion was first noted by Hipparchus c.
120 b.c The precession of the equinoxes was first explained by Isaac
Newton in 1687.
However, we are still taught that Christopher Columbus discovered
America.
> Related news: The sun appeared to rise in the east this
> morning.
First truthful thing you have ever said.
Tashi
Yes, and quite a bit of noise coming from you!
Slogoin
>
> Yes while Galilieo and Copernicus were busy having their discoveries
> sanctioned by the Catholic Church. We could look further back in
> history to see that the Vedic culture, and the Mayans, had known this
> for millenniums.
I'm sure you will offer the source that shows they knew about the
moons of Jupiter and knew why Venus changed brightness. I'd also love
to see the source for how the Moon goes around the Earth which then
goes around the sun. Then we get to precession, which they undoubtedly
understood this concept of spinning bodies like the Earth. I bet they
even understood how gravity locked the Moon to the Earth so we never
see the dark side.... wait I bet they have descriptions of the dark
side of the Moon. I can't wait for your post with sources that show us
all how all maths and sciences were done long before the dumb white
guys.
Tommy Grand
Ha ha, Larry thinks only white Europeans can figure things out! Ha ha!
Slogoin
>
> Or Girodano Bruno. Do you suppose Jackson will explain to us that Bruno's
> "rise as a scientist was not in spite of, but because of, said
> Church." I mean, literally you could say that was true.
The irony of all this is that Jackson would probably be burned
alive at the stake by his own church were he dropped into that world
and had the balls to tell the church they got their facts wrong. My
guess is he'd just kiss ass and stay alive.
Tommy Grand
> The irony of all this is that Jackson would probably be burned
> alive at the stake by his own church were he dropped into that world
> and had the balls to tell the church they got their facts wrong. My
> guess is he'd just kiss ass and stay alive.
This only reveals your ignorance. The Church has always been a forum
for robust debates (within reasonable parameters).
ycle...@verizon.net
>
> So it was the Church who rejected Galileo and Copernicus, not the
> scientific community.
>
> RNJ
There is a wonderful book by Carlo Ginzburg, The Cheese and The Worms,
which based on transcripts of inquisitions details the rejection and
eventual destruction by the Church of a man with natural inquiry--a
well-read Friulian miller who questioned the story of the origin of
the world.
As for another poster's question that might be taken as disparaging to
library science, I highly recommend Jean Seznec's Survival of the
Pagan Gods. What little we know of antiquity can best be credited to
the catalogers, copiers, abstractors, and collectors, and collators
that make up that academy.
Cheers,
MD
Slogoin
>
> Ha ha, Larry thinks only white Europeans can figure things out! Ha ha!
Knowing you don't really believe that, I find your games like this
quite odd at this stage. I wonder why you continue as if the deception
is not noticed by most of the regular posters. Old habits die hard?
Tommy Grand
> Knowing you don't really believe that, I find your games like this
> quite odd at this stage. I wonder why you continue as if the deception
> is not noticed by most of the regular posters. Old habits die hard?
My bad, thought you were being facetious as well. How awkward.
Slogoin
>
> My bad, thought you were being facetious as well. How awkward.
You might what to liberally mark up your posts with the appropriate
emoticon :-0
This is similar in effect to smiling in your videos ;-) You
betcha!
Tommy Grand
> This is similar in effect to smiling in your videos ;-) You
> betcha!
My wife told me to cut that out, so I will. But I think the
experiment did loosen me up a bit.
Tashi
Larry, you grumpy old hippie, Tommy is the most entertaining personage
on this Blog, why are you being so nasty, and vindictive? It's clear
Tommy is just playing with you, lighten up......... Larry here is an
example of Tommy the whale, and Larry the sea lion........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWsN63PRCW8
Slogoin
>
> My wife told me to cut that out, so I will.
Smart man.
> But I think the experiment did loosen me up a bit.
Let's hope so. You can't get much tighter without busting a spring
loose. |:-((((((((((()
Try some duets for a real change.
Slogoin
>
> Larry, you grumpy old hippie
So that's a no go once again for the sources for you claims, right?
Quite a record you have in RMCG MT. I doubt it will ever be surpassed.
Augustine
> What happened to that ozone hole over the Antarctic? At one time
> that was an impending catastrophe if I remember correctly, now you
> never hear of it.
Not to mention the impending ice age in the '70s. What happened to
that?
Augustine
> There is a wonderful book by Carlo Ginzburg, The Cheese and The Worms,
> which based on transcripts of inquisitions details the rejection and
> eventual destruction by the Church of a man with natural inquiry--a
> well-read Friulian miller who questioned the story of the origin of
> the world.
O you have so much processing to throw off. Begin here:
http://www.amazon.com/Are-You-Educated-or-Processed/lm/R1FN409ANXUA0U/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_title_full
Then here:
Slogoin
> Not to mention the impending ice age in the '70s. What happened to that?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Tommy Grand
> Let's hope so. You can't get much tighter without busting a spring
> loose. |:-((((((((((()
>
> Try some duets for a real change.
Thanks for the support, friend. How's study 1 treating you these days?
Augustine
Desperate revisionism.
Tommy Grand
And let's not forget thalidomide. Will the miracles of science never
cease?
John LaCroix
The one thing I will hand to ancient cultures is that they were very
acute observers and dilligent in the manner in which they recorded
their observations...
John LaCroix
Forgot about that one - Will reported earlier that restrictions on
CFC's seems to be taking care of the ozone issue. That
may be an good precendent for the global warming issue, when and if
concensus is reached on the need to act.
John LaCroix
That's an unfortunate example. As for cesasion of scientific
discovery, I would wager that 20% of this group wouldn't be
here to bitch if it weren't for advances in science. We would have
likely died in childhood. The lucky ones would live to the grand old
age of 35.
John LaCroix
Yes, to be expected - the mercury munching village idiot has checked
in...
Augustine
> The one thing I will hand to ancient cultures is that they were very
> acute observers and dilligent in the manner in which they recorded
> their observations...
Why only this one thing? Do you otherwise labor under the myth of
progress and its concomitant chronological snobbery?
Augustine
> That's an unfortunate example. As for cesasion of scientific
> discovery, I would wager that 20% of this group wouldn't be
> here to bitch if it weren't for advances in science. We would have
> likely died in childhood. The lucky ones would live to the grand old
> age of 35.
Interesting that you mention age here. In a seminar last week we
discussed the misleading stats regarding life spans of old. Those
stats are skewed by the high infant mortality rate of old. However, if
one made it past infancy, one had an excellent chance of living to 80
and beyond.
Regarding science, of course I embrace it - within its proper limits.
What I reject is not science, but scientism; that is, ideology masked
as science.
Augustine
> mercury munching village idiot
I love this phrase!