Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote: 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.

Except that the 'world' in this case is others beliefs and if they won't express them I can safely assume they aren't here to philosophise so much as to troll but I think I can now safely assume that you are a godbothering creationist and all your guff about science and Darwin's doubts are just that.

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

No, you can believe in a 'God' who started the initial creation of existence and then has left it well alone ever since.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 9:37 am 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!

Global warming was first predicted by a Swedish scientist in 1896. The fossil fuel industry has know full well for decades the consequences of burning fossil fuels, just as tobacco companies have known at least since the 1930s that smoking causes cancer.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:56 pm

Walker wrote: 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.

Except that the 'world' in this case is others beliefs and if they won't express them I can safely assume they aren't here to philosophise so much as to troll but I think I can now safely assume that you are a godbothering creationist and all your guff about science and Darwin's doubts are just that.

Man, you're just a believer, and you hear what you want to hear.

However, I am a critical mind.

No, Michael Mann, Global Warming Didn't Cause Hurricane Harvey's Devastation
- Investor’s Business Daily, editorial
http://www.investors.com/politics/edito ... vastation/

"There is no reason to be debating Harvey and climate change in the context of an unfolding disaster, other than political opportunism and attention-seeking," said climate scientist and University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke. "It's not a good look for scientists or journalists who are promoting this issue."

Pielke destroys the notion that global warming has made hurricanes or tropical storms worse by noting that from 1926 to 1969, a period of 44 years, there were 14 category 4 hurricanes that made landfall. From 1970 to 2017, or 47 years, there have been just four. If anything, if you were a global warming advocate and being honest, you'd have to say that higher temperatures have caused the number of severe hurricanes hitting the U.S. to decline by 70%.

All of the news shows, newspapers, news websites and magazines will be peddling the same shamanistic nonsense: Global warming is to blame for everything nasty in the natural world, but especially for the brutal hurricanes that occasionally rip into our coast. But the facts show it just ain't true.


It shouldn't be too difficult in this new age of human evolving beyond truth to come up with a model that says it will be true, and then tag the label of science upon it for legitimacy via labeling.

Walker wrote:Man, you're just a believer, and you hear what you want to hear. ...

Easily solved, are you or are you not a believer in creationism or intelligent design?

However, I am a critical mind.

If so and the answer to the above is yes what criticism do you have of creationism or intelligent design?

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 4:39 pmHowever, I am a critical mind.

Yes, your alleged mind is in critical condition. That's what happens when you spend your life watching Fox (Fake) News.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 5:25 pm

Walker wrote:Man, you're just a believer, and you hear what you want to hear. ...

Easily solved, are you or are you not a believer in creationism or intelligent design?

However, I am a critical mind.

If so and the answer to the above is yes what criticism do you have of creationism or intelligent design?

Walker watches Faux News all day. No point in asking him intelligent questions.

Walker wrote:...
It shouldn't be too difficult in this new age of human evolving beyond truth to come up with a model that says it will be true, and then tag the label of science upon it for legitimacy via labeling.

Here's a more interesting political one -

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/29/opini ... index.html

And here's one that explain how GW may have made Harvey unique, so far -

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ey/538158/

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 4:18 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 9:37 am 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!

Global warming was first predicted by a Swedish scientist in 1896. The fossil fuel industry has know full well for decades the consequences of burning fossil fuels, just as tobacco companies have known at least since the 1930s that smoking causes cancer.

Just shows that profits outweigh health or the environment every time. But don't blame the big companies, they are just the suppliers, blame the consumers who create the demand. If it wasn't this big company filling the demand, it would be another.

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 6:09 pm Walker watches Faux News all day. No point in asking him intelligent questions.

Way off topic, Einstein. Time for a belief change.

Footprint find on Crete may push back date humans began to walk upright
http://www.news.com.au/technology/scien ... cc9d79297d

“Put simply, the study argues there was another — previously unidentified — human-like creature walking the Earth long before we believed it was possible.”

Philosophy of Science

So, the director of the FBI formed his conclusions before his investigation.

Is he also a climatetologist?
https://www.scribd.com/document/3577426 ... from_embed

“According to the unredacted portions of the transcripts, it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Corney had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton. That was long before FBI agents finished their work. Mr. Corney even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership. The outcome of aninvestigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts.”

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 6:47 pm

Walker wrote:...
It shouldn't be too difficult in this new age of human evolving beyond truth to come up with a model that says it will be true, and then tag the label of science upon it for legitimacy via labeling.

Here's a more interesting political one -

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/29/opini ... index.html

And here's one that explain how GW may have made Harvey unique, so far -

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ey/538158/

Here's another person who says the science is settled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14kNtnJgXXM

Sadly, the agenda that both finances and drives his lavish lifestyle is the source of belief for many of the laypeople, persons, folks of dubious gender identification. (I’ll call my monkey for the source of that information.)

Here, he subtly implies why summers are hot. Folks viewing from home who once or twice in the course of their day had to swelter on the walk between the air-conditioned house, and the air-conditioned car, say right on, for the very simple and rather stupid reason of language, namely, change is a more dynamic slogan than mitigate.

One simply does not see revoluuuutionaries smashing things, wearing black balaclavas and demanding, mitigation!.

The Science of Climate Mitigation.

Has a nice ring to it.

How ironic listening to a creationist discuss the scientific method.

You keep on working on your ducks, for look where they've gotten you so far.

From the sounds of your "philosophy" education, I have a lot more accredited and tested scientific study under my belt than the question meister.

*

Relating to the more general Philosophy of Science, rather than a weak mind chattering about persons, source the monkey:

In all fairness, the faux pax slip of the tongue of the settled-science politician linked above, who corrupted the good name of science, and apparently a generation of acolytes, is likely the consequence of peering out at the world from a government-spending paradigm.

A few thousand degrees, a few million degrees, a few billion dollars, fifteen thousand billion dollars … some big number or t’other, say the lay, and a juicy portion to the science community from the patrons, for your services of impartial inquiry (someone put irony on the menu).