Philosophy Now Forum

As of yesterday morning, Stephen Hawking does not hold a Ph.D. either.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:41 pm SSoS,

It's possible Phil is as you describe ("a certain type of people"), but mebbe he's just not particularly moved by the 'authority of the majority', has looked at the 'solid science' and found it lacking.

I'm not seein' that Phil has 'denied' anything...he just doubts it.

Is honest skepticism no longer allowed?

I just want him to know where his own research stands in the face of the vast majority of relevant scientists. Typically people who don't believe that people have contributed to climate change also don't accept the idea that it's scientific consensus.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 7:40 pmI've read there are supposed to be 31,000 global scientists. The only thing I'm sure of is science is fluid and I have seen reports casting doubt on global warming so I wanted to check it out.

What did the reports say, exactly? What are some of the findings that lead you to be skeptical on climate science?

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 7:51 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 7:40 pmI've read there are supposed to be 31,000 global scientists. The only thing I'm sure of is science is fluid and I have seen reports casting doubt on global warming so I wanted to check it out.

What did the reports say, exactly? What are some of the findings that lead you to be skeptical on climate science?

For me to go back and look up those reports would be too hard. And to try to post them when they may be copyrighted isn't a good idea.

PhilX

-1- wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 7:44 pm As of yesterday morning, Stephen Hawking does not hold a Ph.D. either.

Really? I've heard him addressed as Professor.

PhilX

My sales accomplishments are part of history, something FDP nor anyone else can change. Even better is I've taught others to sell.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 8:16 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 7:51 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 7:40 pmI've read there are supposed to be 31,000 global scientists. The only thing I'm sure of is science is fluid and I have seen reports casting doubt on global warming so I wanted to check it out.

What did the reports say, exactly? What are some of the findings that lead you to be skeptical on climate science?

For me to go back and look up those reports would be too hard.

So you don't remember what they were about, you just remember that they were personally convincing to you...do you realize that information is useless to anyone but yourself?

And to try to post them when they may be copyrighted isn't a good idea.

Have you gone mental?

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 8:27 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 8:16 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 7:51 pm What did the reports say, exactly? What are some of the findings that lead you to be skeptical on climate science?

For me to go back and look up those reports would be too hard.

So you don't remember what they were about, you just remember that they were personally convincing to you...do you realize that information is useless to anyone but yourself?

And to try to post them when they may be copyrighted isn't a good idea.

Have you gone mental?

You think it's okay to post copyrighted material? I hope you have deep pockets.

PhilX

Here's a question I haven't seen discussed: what is the confidence level that global warming is happening (95%?
100%?)

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 8:30 pmYou think it's okay to post copyrighted material? I hope you have deep pockets.

I asked you to link some sources. Why would you ever think that's violating copyright laws? Lot of people you know getting sued for linking stuff on obscure philosophy forums, or any internet forum?

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:05 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 8:30 pmYou think it's okay to post copyrighted material? I hope you have deep pockets.

I asked you to link some sources. Why would you ever think that's violating copyright laws? Lot of people you know getting sued for linking stuff on obscure philosophy forums, or any internet forum?

Notice of copyright is sufficient.

PhilX

Henry: Yes, a person who believes in science does have to accept the scientific consensus. If the consensus is wrong, then the scientific consensus will change down the road. However, that mere possibility does not provide a rational justification for ignoring the scientific consensus today.

You deny the climate science based on your ideological beliefs. If you had to admit climate change is real, caused by humans, and dangerous to our survival, then you would also have to admit that free-markets would require a government solution to resolve this issue due to the large negative externalities involved. This is why libertarians and anarchists so frequently turn into science-deniers: They can't handle such scientific facts as climate change, or even vaccinations relying upon a herd immunity. This is why the libertarian party is so full of conspiracy theorists that it may as well rename itself the tin-foil-hat party at this point.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:08 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:05 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 8:30 pmYou think it's okay to post copyrighted material? I hope you have deep pockets.

I asked you to link some sources. Why would you ever think that's violating copyright laws? Lot of people you know getting sued for linking stuff on obscure philosophy forums, or any internet forum?

Notice of copyright is sufficient.

That doesn't mean it's an enforced law. That's why I ask you if anyone you've known has been arrested on the grounds of linking to a source on an internet forum. By the books, oral sex is still technically illegal in Missouri, but that's not to say it's still an enforceable law.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 10:18 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:08 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:05 pm I asked you to link some sources. Why would you ever think that's violating copyright laws? Lot of people you know getting sued for linking stuff on obscure philosophy forums, or any internet forum?

Notice of copyright is sufficient.

That doesn't mean it's an enforced law. That's why I ask you if anyone you've known has been arrested on the grounds of linking to a source on an internet forum. By the books, oral sex is still technically illegal in Missouri, but that's not to say it's still an enforceable law.

If you like to give away $3,000 every time you're sued, that's your business.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 10:27 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 10:18 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:08 pm
Notice of copyright is sufficient.

That doesn't mean it's an enforced law. That's why I ask you if anyone you've known has been arrested on the grounds of linking to a source on an internet forum. By the books, oral sex is still technically illegal in Missouri, but that's not to say it's still an enforceable law.

If you like to give away $3,000 every time you're sued, that's your business.

From my knowledge, no one ever has been sued for posting a link on an internet forum, though. That's my point. Usually, news articles encourage people to repost their materials for publicity and clicks.

I mean, there are internet forums specifically dedicated to child predators and drug use, and even those people are never arrested for mere forum posts. And those laws actually are enforced.