Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:47 pmTaxonomy God has a more modern ring than God of the Labels. ...

Philosophy is a more interesting subject than ancient Biology to me.

Did you ever learn the breakdown and classifications when lining up the ducks in a row?

Sure if I want to shoot the ducks in some kind of order.

So in order, are you or are you not a creationist or IDer? What doubts do you think Darwin had? If you decry dogmatism what doubts do you have about creationism or ID? If meaning is discovered in the real world where in the real world is this thing you mean by 'God'?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:07 am

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:47 pmTaxonomy God has a more modern ring than God of the Labels. ...

Philosophy is a more interesting subject than ancient Biology to me.

Did you ever learn the breakdown and classifications when lining up the ducks in a row?

Sure if I want to shoot the ducks in some kind of order.

So in order, are you or are you not a creationist or IDer? What doubts do you think Darwin had? If you decry dogmatism what doubts do you have about creationism or ID? If meaning is discovered in the real world where in the real world is this thing you mean by 'God'?

Apparently philosophy is merely a ruse. By the repeated clamor for answers from an unrecognized authority the curiosity is revealed to be as false as the questions packed with preconceptions, a myopia of acceptance that harkens to the closed-minded surety of so-called settled science, most often heard from the global warming charlatans. Anything more is merely repetition, which has not penetrated the mission to date. Yes, I know. You don't understand.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:06 am... global warming charlatans. ...

Ah, yes, what a big surprise!

Sure, trained climate scientists from all over the world who have been working on climate modeling for more than three decades are all ... charlatans. Why? Because some rando on the internet who no doubt is also a Fox News junkie says so.

Well, I'm sold!

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:27 am

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:06 am... global warming charlatans. ...

Ah, yes, what a big surprise!

Sure, trained climate scientists from all over the world who have been working on climate modeling for more than three decades are all ... charlatans. Why? Because some rando on the internet who no doubt is also a Fox News junkie says so.

Well, I'm sold!

Pick the model based on bogus data that fits the narrative de jour, and if it doesn't fit, tweak a factor and observe the printout of time compounded working its magic into a fantasy future. Some bullshit science that is, hook line and sinker...

$15 trillion in Al's pocket is all we need to make the weather right as rain.

Richard Feynman on Scientific Method (1964)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KmimDq4cSU

As for global warming, Walker (which is wildly off topic), you are on the wrong side of history here.

Climate is physics. The mapping of CO2 in the atmosphere over many years has been done. CO2 retains heat. Human activities are releasing it into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate. Laypersons massively underestimate the thoroughness of scientists. There is obviously much more complexity to the picture, but the physical things mentioned above are indisputable.

Many people, with the barest minimum of information, have a tendency to plump for whatever seems most intuitively likely or preferable, and then assume that scientists do the same. Scientists go into a level of detail which many of their critics could not hope to comprehend or emulate. There is no logical argument against AGW, especially since numerous people and other animals around the world are already being displaced and losing resources due to its effects. Whatever, it doesn't matter what we say here, or who denies what. It changes nothing.

Re: the topic, there is the same problem with laypersons afflicted with the Dunning-Kruger effect. The only problem I see with the theory of evolution (without taking into consideration the many debates about the detail within the EB community) is that the theory only concerns biology and does not much consider the geological development that preceded and ultimately produced biology.

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 2:02 am As for global warming, Walker (which is wildly off topic), you are on the wrong side of history here.

That won't be verifiable for about a hundred years, hardly cause to alter the course of civilization to end global warming in the effort to achieve the perfect, unchanging climate. If my vote counts for anything, make it stop changing at about 82 degrees F., low humidity please.

Some of the worst consequences are the indirect ones WE have directly caused, namely forest fires generating massive releases of captured CO2 which in turn cause more forests to burn faster and sooner than they normally would and thus it builds. Chain reactions whose causes are not severed soon enough will get to the point where no technology, if that's the redemption we hope for, will be able to annul it.
Glad I don't have kids!

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 2:02 am Many people, with the barest minimum of information, have a tendency to plump for whatever seems most intuitively likely or preferable,

The true believers are prime, plump suspects.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 2:49 am Some of the worst consequences are the indirect ones WE have directly caused, namely forest fires generating massive releases of captured CO2 which in turn cause more forests to burn faster and sooner than they normally would and thus it builds. Chain reactions whose causes are not severed soon enough will get to the point where no technology, if that's the redemption we hope for, will be able to annul it.
Glad I don't have kids!

Massive? More like a whole minescule fraction of a fraction of a fraction, although smoke can be impressive from a certain perspective of scale.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 2:59 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 2:49 am Some of the worst consequences are the indirect ones WE have directly caused, namely forest fires generating massive releases of captured CO2 which in turn cause more forests to burn faster and sooner than they normally would and thus it builds. Chain reactions whose causes are not severed soon enough will get to the point where no technology, if that's the redemption we hope for, will be able to annul it.
Glad I don't have kids!

Massive? More like a whole minescule fraction of a fraction of a fraction, although smoke can be impressive from a certain perspective of scale.

...like smoke coming out of your ears?

Walker wrote:Apparently philosophy is merely a ruse. ...

For you? Sure.

By the repeated clamor for answers from an unrecognized authority the curiosity is revealed to be as false ...

BA(Hons)Philosophy degree, MSc degree and Diploma of Imperial College recognized enough for you? At least for being here and being curious upon a Philosophy forum.

as the questions packed with preconceptions, ...

Still not quite heard you say you're not a creationist or IDer?

In fact thought you hinted that the labels did apply to you but its hard to tell wading through your murk but correct preconceptions about you it seems, not least because the more you obfuscate the more apparent it becomes.

a myopia of acceptance that harkens to the closed-minded surety of so-called settled science, most often heard from the global warming charlatans. ...

How is Houston doing?

Anything more is merely repetition, which has not penetrated the mission to date. ...

Which, your trolling one?

Yes, I know. You don't understand.

You wish.

What are these doubts that Darwin had that you said we should examine?

Walker wrote:The true believers are prime, plump suspects.

Well that's godbotherers for you.

So that's the source of the cause leading to silly questions and comments.

You don't know what end is up, do you.

Feynman goes off topic to explain the epistemology of scientific reasoning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... O0r930Sn_8

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 2:49 am Glad I don't have kids!

So am I.