Climategate

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

So the knowledge is nihilistic. What's the point of learning about our universe if it doesn't help us understand ourselves?

Why wouldn't it help us understand ourselves?

Maybe the better question is why humans want to learn about the universe (pathologically so).

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Why wouldn't it help us understand ourselves?

Maybe the better question is why humans want to learn about the universe (pathologically so).

That's a good question. Don't get me wrong. The natural sciences are amazing, absolutely incredible at describing natural phenomena. I'm just not at all convinced that this same process can/should be applied to human affairs. I used to be big on consilience, definitely not anymore.

[photon]

As I've said before, science is a tool, not a philosophy. Science is a way of understanding natural phenomenon.

As with any tool, it must be applied properly.

"Are vaccines effective" is a scientific question. "Should vaccines be mandatory" is not a scientific question (though it has a scientific answer if maximum effectiveness is the goal, it would require a specific percentage of coverage). That's a different kind of question though and must be answered with respect to governance, human rights, etc.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

As I've said before, science is a tool, not a philosophy. Science is a way of understanding natural phenomenon.

As with any tool, it must be applied properly.

"Are vaccines effective" is a scientific question. "Should vaccines be mandatory" is not a scientific question (though it has a scientific answer if maximum effectiveness is the goal, it would require a specific percentage of coverage). That's a different kind of question though and must be answered with respect to governance, human rights, etc.

Many good 20th century philosophers have made the point that Darwin was essentially an Enlightenment liberal. Aristotle made the point that the polity comes before man. That is, our natural foundings are in politics. We are primarily political creatures and thus, that colours all of our own actions and interactions with others.

Science as a tool for understand anything is as much of a philosophical outlook as religion is. Likewise, religion is just as much of a tool for uncovering understanding as science is.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

So the knowledge is nihilistic. What's the point of learning about our universe if it doesn't help us understand ourselves?

The universe existed for billions of years without humans. It's not all about us.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

The universe existed for billions of years without humans. It's not all about us.

Sure it is. Let's not pretend otherwise.

[photon]

I agree, humans are social (and consequently I guess political) animals. So? The next paragraph does not follow or even relate to the first.

How can religion discover the mass of a proton? How can science say some rights are inalienable? How can philosophy create a method of doubling lifespans? How can science deal with the social and political consequences of that?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

Sure it is..

No it isn't.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

I agree, humans are social (and consequently I guess political) animals. So? The next paragraph does not follow or even relate to the first.

How can religion discover the mass of a proton? How can science say some rights are inalienable? How can philosophy create a method of doubling lifespans? How can science deal with the social and political consequences of that?

I've got recommend this book right here. It's a classic.

Basically the scientific worldview of assuming that everything is reducible to a series of described phenomena forms the world view of modern politics.

[troutman]

I think we've discussed NOMA before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

In his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion."[1] He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution"[1] and the NOMA principle is "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."[1]

Richard Dawkins has criticized the NOMA principle on the grounds that religion does not, and cannot, steer clear of the material scientific matters that Gould considers outside religion's scope.

Although a fervant supporter of Gould's works, Francis Collins also criticised the limits of NOMA, believing that science, religion, and other spheres have "partially overlapped," though agrees with Gould that morals, spirituality, and ethics cannot be determined from naturalistic interpretation. [7]

I think Collins has it right.

Other views of NOMA:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Non-Overlapping_Magisteria

This theory is demonstrably faulty because it is obvious that the intelligent design of the universe would leave behind perceptible evidence allowing the existence of God to be inferred without reference to faith. Furthermore the NOMA principle would directly contradict Biblical evidence of miracles which if observable by scientists would be demonstrably true.

To embrace NOMA would be to consign the entirety of scripture to metaphor and storytelling.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Debate:...correctness%3F

http://libcom.org/library/creationev...?quicktabs_1=0

This NOMA principle is used in much of the NCSE literature as an attempt to persuade religious believers than evolution poses no threat to their religious faith.

http://www.naturalism.org/Can%20Scie...an%202007).pdf

Several prominent scientists, philosophers, and scientific institutions have argued that science cannot test supernatural worldviews on the grounds that (1) science presupposes a naturalistic worldview (Naturalism) or that (2) claims involving supernatural phenomena are inherently beyond the scope of scientific investigation. The present paper argues that these assumptions are questionable and that indeed science can test supernatural claims. While scientific evidence may ultimately support a naturalistic worldview, science does not presuppose Naturalism as an a priori commitment, and supernatural claims are amenable to scientific evaluation.

[photon]

You didn't answer my question about how these different methods could answer different questions.

Assuming everything is reducible to a series of described phenomena is not a "worldview", it's an assumption that science makes with respect to natural phenomena. Methodological naturalism. Kind of like how any philosophy I assume would make the assumption that solipsism isn't useful.

Some might subscribe to a philosophical naturalism, but again I don't see how that's science's fault.

If that forms the world view of modern politics, well that seems to me that that's politics' problem.. maybe it should choose the right tool. Or maybe it's philosophy's problem because it hasn't been vocal enough.

That you think the world view of modern politics is based on the wrong thing doesn't indicate that science and religion and philosophy are all equivalent.

It's even more confusing, first you say that science and religion and philosophy are tools for uncovering understanding, then you reject science as a tool for uncovering understanding.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by photon

Ah but we do hear those things from scientists. "If we start the LHC the earth will NOT be destroyed." "If people stop taking vaccines we will see a resurgence of previously defeated diseases like measles and such." "Unless we restrict fishing of x species to y levels the species will be wiped out". "Unless we remove substance abc from food d there will be an increase of bad thing e". And on and on.

Al Gore isn't a scientist. What politicians and the media say about scientific matters is usually best thrown away if understanding is what's desired.

If you read the papers they say the same thing as other scientists... "If this trend continues this will happen, and these are the variables that can impact that", or they point out that what will actually happen is unknown, because the temperatures and other things are moving outside historical ranges.

And waiting for a perfect understanding before doing anything would mean we'd still be in caves.



You're conflating to completely different things. They still make and understand how computers work despite not being able to harmonize gravity with the quantum world.

Sure, but these things are verifiable. They can prove what they are saying about vaccines by pointing out numerous precedents from the past when vaccines did work.

Can you point out measures to reduce carbon emissions taken in the past that significantly reduced global temperatures? And that's the thing. If bad understanding of physics mean we make faulty computers, no harm done, really, we try to build them another way.

However the impact of measures to reduce carbon emissions will be significant (see my post above) and the results are dubious at best. Even if we reduced global carbon emissions by 50% tomorrow by spending XX bilions of $, what will be the impact on the temperature in 100 yrs?

I read somewhere that even if we do cause global warming and even if we reduce carbon emissions it will have a neligible impact in the grand scheme of things.

I think the liberals are about to royally screw up the global economy (again) and the outlook for a positive result is bleak at best and many many decades away.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

If all this was just a pissing match between two group of scientists, we all could not care less. However, governments all around the globe are going to make huge, impactful decision based on claims of one of these groups (the fact that this group is the one they support financially is just a pure coincidence).

You make it sound like an debate carrying equal scientific weight.

On one hand you have a broad consensus of an international collaboration of scientists whilst on the other you have a minimal number backed up by media and blogs who present zero credible evidence of credible alternative/null hypothesis.

We can argue that they've been silenced all we want and won't change each others minds but there are processes in place and plenty of journals for them to publish their findings. They have and have been rubbished. We can argue they haven't has access to data but the fact remains there is tonnes of data readily available online for them to analyse and present a credible criticism.

I accept that you aren't buying it but my question is then what exactly do you buy and why?

And why in your view should they adopt a do nothing approach based on zero evidence to do so as opposed to adopting the precautionary principle based on the best available evidence.

And let's remember that a significant part of the meeting will be focusing on adaptation measures based on already "observed" happenings.

[photon]

EDIT: To FoL ^^

That's true, we don't have another earth and a time machine to be able to run experiments and see the results..

However they do have historical data going back a long time to be able to see what the natural cycles are like and the consequences of those, how much CO2 was in the atmosphere then and what temperatures did, etc.. And we're way outside those levels now, so as I said really the answer is no one knows for sure what all the effects will be, since the parameters are well outside the historical ranges, the ranges we care about anyway. They know when in history the oceans were 5m above where they are now, and what the temperatures and CO2 and other gasses were like then. And we know the excessive CO2 in the atmosphere now is from burning fossil fuels.

It's like astronomy, we don't have a star or a galaxy or a universe to be able to experiment on, however science can still be done.

And you are right, the cost of taking action has to be weighed. Against the cost of not taking action, which is difficult because you can't perfectly predict the future.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

Calgaryborn said 52% of Americans don't accept AGW, as if that had some kind of relevance. My point is that popular opinion about something does not say anything about the validity of that thing. And evolution is a perfect example of that.

Obviously your adequate scores in science were tempered with sub-par scores in reading comprehension. I made no attempt to claim a majority opinion on anything constituted proof or validity. That is an argument Gore and others have used repeatedly. Claiming a scientific consensus and trash talking any scientist who raises a question or offers alternate theories is a staple of Gore's environmental cult. My conversation was concerning the politics of global warming and how ineffective the scaremongering has been on the general population. Considering the money and effort that has been given to promoting this theory to the masses there hasn't been much of an impact.

Your attack on my faith had nothing to do with the conversation and everything to do with your disdain for me. How human and unscientific of you!

As for your unanswered questions; the ones I remember revolved around you asking for posts of the specific emails we/I were discussing. I found the request ignorant being as they were already posted in this thread with links. You had already said you had read them and thought they were all taken out of context. Obviously that was enough for you to close the file. But for me and a few others your opinion settled nothing. Given your inability to follow the conversation I think my opinion was justified.

[Jetsfan]

So much for controlling CO2 emissions....

"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention,"

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...ar-wedges.html

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Jetsfan

So much for controlling CO2 emissions....

"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention,"

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets

And in that, we have exactly why I have given up. I've been a member of the Sierra Club, Canadian Environmental Network, OPIRG's environmental group at Carleton....

But to expect the most powerful and wealthy to set policy that requires them to relinquish the opulence they are so freely given is like watching the CEOs of the major automotive companies showing up congress pleading poverty after flying into town on their private jets.

The cry for change is not coming from those in the limos. It's coming from the people in the streets. The 3,000 people that were on parliament hill a few weeks ago. It's coming from the people that I know still fighting the good (but futile) fight to get those in the positions of power to do something meaningful.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Obviously your adequate scores in science were tempered with sub-par scores in reading comprehension. I made no attempt to claim a majority opinion on anything constituted proof or validity.

You gave those #'s in context of talking about calling the validity of science into question, and then said they didn't believe because the science was "scare-mongering". What else is it supposed to mean.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

That is an argument Gore and others have used repeatedly. Claiming a scientific consensus and trash talking any scientist who raises a question or offers alternate theories is a staple of Gore's environmental cult.

There is a scientific consensus, and that's vastly different than a public opinion. And Oh no, trash talking! How terrible.

You know what shuts up trash talking? Putting up. People with alternative theories publishing a paper instead of writing a book or appearing on Fox. You will probably claim that there's some kind conspiracy limiting them from doing so, even though there's no evidence of that, not even in the stolen emails. Sure there's private talk among some scientists about it, but no evidence of a vast global conspiracy, which is what would be required to stifle alternative theory publications.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

My conversation was concerning the politics of global warming and how ineffective the scaremongering has been on the general population. Considering the money and effort that has been given to promoting this theory to the masses there hasn't been much of an impact.

Fair enough. Though it's only scaremongering when you disagree, eh? And that's my point as well; there's a lot of people who reject science based on ideology or emotion. It's a difficult thing to teach people who don't want to learn.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Your attack on my faith had nothing to do with the conversation and everything to do with your disdain for me. How human and unscientific of you!

I didn't attack your faith, and I don't have disdain for you. I have disdain for some of the things you think and how you came to think them, but that's different (kind of like hate the sin love the sinner).

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

As for your unanswered questions; the ones I remember revolved around you asking for posts of the specific emails we/I were discussing. I found the request ignorant being as they were already posted in this thread with links.

So link to the posts then, I can't read your mind and figure out which ones you mean.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You had already said you had read them and thought they were all taken out of context. Obviously that was enough for you to close the file. But for me and a few others your opinion settled nothing. Given your inability to follow the conversation I think my opinion was justified.

So explain why they weren't taken out of context. I posted a video that explained exactly what the meaning of the two emails so far mentioned are, the hiding the decline one and the trick one.

I provided dictionary definitions for trick which showed that normal people use the word to refer to something non-deceptive.

The video shows what hiding the decline means and shows that it means nothing about global temperatures.

One appropriate response if you are trying to convince someone that the emails ARE in fact evidence of wrong doing is to show in context that trick IS meant to deceive, or that the decline being hid IS related to global temperatures.

[Thor]

Looking back I wish it wasn't Al Gore who championed this in the states and made a movie to get his point across. Maybe if it was a conservative who did this it wouldn't have become so polarized to the left vs right on people's stance for this issue.

Better yet if that documentary was done by real scientists instead of a politician.

Oh well, damage done.

[Sluggo]

One of my idiot profs once explained the relationship between what people think they know based on the time they spent at University. It ranges between everything (kids fresh out of High school) to nearly nothing (PhD's with decades of experience) we are all idiots, most people just don't know it yet.