Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 3:12 am

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

Well that's godbotherers for you.

Many theists, since they have no evidence, are highly skilled with rhetorical games, and we see it on these forums all the time. After all, without rhetorical games what does a theist or climate denialist have? Guesswork. Wishful thinking. Hunches. Intuition. Hatred of "greenies" re: the latter.

Maybe denialists might like to explain to islanders dispossessed by rising sea levels how it's all just in scientists' imaginations? Maybe polar bears are also true believers, deluded into thinking they are having to swim where they once could walk?

Feynman would roll in his grave to think that his logic was being used to justify science denial.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:29 am

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

Nothing Feynman says gives any support to climate change denialism. This is what we get after three decades of Fox News dumbing down the (already dumb) American public -- Donald Trump and you.

You won't get what this means, of course, but human-caused global warming has been confirmed to a 95 percent probability. It doesn't get any more real than that. That is the gold standard in science. As someone has written, human-induced global warming is just slightly less certain than idea that if you let go of a coin, it will fall to earth.

And of course, here we see, from you, the ritual Fox News-watching zombie's gratuitous swipe at Al Gore -- as if Gore made up global warming. He didn't. He is merely publicizing good, sound science, which is beyond you.

It is funny, too, how you dismiss any possible negative effects as happening a hundred years from now. It's happening right now. But even if it weren't, and even if the predicted consequences of climate change were to happen a hundred years hence, isn't it just like a Fox-News-watching zombie to tell future people to go eff themselves so that you can gorge yourself now and to hell with our descendants. Let the buggers fend for themselves, eh?

thedoc wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:37 pmWhere has Trump been proven to be a fascist...

Well, in your own words:

thedoc wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:37 pmThere is a difference between being guilty and being convicted.

thedoc wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:37 pm...other than in the phony news.

Other than Trump's say so, what evidence do you have that any piece of news is "phony"?

thedoc wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:37 pmA police officer once told me "We don't often catch the smart ones".

Much less vote for them.

thedoc wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 4:11 am

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

So am I.

I figure whoever I caused NOT to exist owes me a big favor.

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 4:34 amIt is funny, too, how you dismiss any possible negative effects as happening a hundred years from now.

Consider the logic: continue with business as usual for another century and, if there the predicted catastrophes occur, then the survivors will know it's real.

Really, all that's happening is that the US, a nation with the best possible advantages leading into this new world, are throwing away their advantages at a furious rate, as though intent on becoming one of the losers in the restructured global economy, along with most of the Middle East, Africa and SE Asia. I think they have enough of a buffer to survive this current wave of denialist self-destructiveness, but this lagging during a pivotal time of rapid change will set them back a long way competitively.

The way humans behave is truly weird in strangely perverse ways. I wonder if it's common for other "intelligences" to require a bureaucracy of evidence manufacturers to determine the most obvious cause.

For how many years have we pumped millions of tons of greenhouse gases with seeming impunity into the biosphere knowing full well what it does and now, in consequence, witness huge imbalances and catastrophes in natures feedback loops! We began events which continue to compound with dangerous environmental consequences if persisted in and when they actually start to happen our first demand is for proof that we are indeed the culprits!

We continue doing what we know we shouldn't do and when things get really nasty we insist on absolute confirmed proof that it was "my bad" after-all! It seems permissible for us to deviate in any way we want but remain innocent until proven guilty by evidence based on the perverse assumption that it could have happened anyways even if we hadn't done it. Convenient, since THAT outcome can never be verified! This is tantamount to first having nature prove itself innocent before proving ourselves guilty!

The logic of this couldn't be more ass-backwards if you wiped it from the front! It doesn't add up! There's a paradox here which by any criteria goes completely against reason, or any test of intelligence we consider ourselves to be the hallmark of!

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 4:19 am

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 3:12 am

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

Well that's godbotherers for you.

Many theists, since they have no evidence, are highly skilled with rhetorical games, and we see it on these forums all the time. After all, without rhetorical games what does a theist or climate denialist have? Guesswork. Wishful thinking. Hunches. Intuition. Hatred of "greenies" re: the latter.

Maybe denialists might like to explain to islanders dispossessed by rising sea levels how it's all just in scientists' imaginations? Maybe polar bears are also true believers, deluded into thinking they are having to swim where they once could walk?

Feynman would roll in his grave to think that his logic was being used to justify science denial.

Denialists?

No scientist would use such a word.

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 4:34 am Nothing Feynman says gives any support to climate change denialism ...

Moron.

Global cooling didn’t work, so change it to global warming.

Global warming didn’t work, so change it to climate change.

End climate change at 82 degrees, please. Low humidity.

Oh, that’s right. You can’t end it.

Guess the “scientists” who have bastardized the label must come up with a new name.

Global warming is not science. It's a political movement of believers.

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 8:25 am

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 4:34 amIt is funny, too, how you dismiss any possible negative effects as happening a hundred years from now.

Consider the logic: continue with business as usual for another century and, if there the predicted catastrophes occur, then the survivors will know it's real.

Really, all that's happening is that the US, a nation with the best possible advantages leading into this new world, are throwing away their advantages at a furious rate, as though intent on becoming one of the losers in the restructured global economy, along with most of the Middle East, Africa and SE Asia. I think they have enough of a buffer to survive this current wave of denialist self-destructiveness, but this lagging during a pivotal time of rapid change will set them back a long way competitively.

Consider the logic of ending all industrial activity (but not in China or India) in an attempt to alter the earth's temperature a fraction of a degree as compared to a bogus base-line, to negligible effect, on the word of charlatans. This logic will lead to wearing a sandwich board upon which it is written, the end is near.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:14 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:52 am

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:35 am Sho 'nuff. The labels are your God in your world, comprehension of which is subject to your limitations, just as your notions of physicality are limited by incarnation and blocked capacity. Any honest wanker not bent by the agenda of cramming comprehension into a narrow range reflected by the labeling can be mesmerized by, and even appreciative of, the motion of the ocean, however any scientist who has not yet corrupted himself into a dogmatist will move beyond and into the examination of his doubts, the place for understanding and not acolyte-like parroting. Meaning is discovered, not assigned, and the truth of the meaning is whether or not it accords with reality. Now for a bleat of the familiar refrain.

I never read so much hot air that was so devoid of meaning. You deserve a prize.

The Order of the Waffle.

Minus the ground for assignation, understanding requires one step beyond into discovery.

ROLF

thedoc wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2017 7:39 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:12 am And who do you chose to get it right? A fucking fascist psychopath.

I'd rather have Trump as president than a criminal psychopath.

You mean you'd rather have a psychopathic narcissist, than a criminal psychopath.
In what way is Kim criminal?

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

Come come why so coy about your beliefs? This is philosophy forum after all.

They are simple questions that a man of your calibre should be able to answer clearly.

Are you a believer in creationism or intelligent design?

What doubts were you referring to when you said we should examine Darwin's doubts?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:12 pm

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

Come come why so coy about your beliefs? This is philosophy forum after all.

They are simple questions that a man of your calibre should be able to answer clearly.

Are you a believer in creationism or intelligent design?

What doubts were you referring to when you said we should examine Darwin's doubts?

The basis of your world is belief. Therefore, it’s up to you to align your taxonomy to your world, or else get yourself a monkey.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:08 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:14 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:52 am

I never read so much hot air that was so devoid of meaning. You deserve a prize.

The Order of the Waffle.

Minus the ground for assignation, understanding requires one step beyond into discovery.

ROLF

Hobbes, you sound like a teenage girl.

What do you do when you know God exists? Do you then have to believe in Intelligent Design?