Culture Wars And Climate Science As Ideology - No Dawg In The Fight

[Procrustes Stretched]

I guess Big Oil is part of the conspiracy too...

http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

Today, as Exxon’s scientists predicted 25 years ago, Canada’s Northwest Territories has experienced some of the most dramatic effects of global warming. While the rest of the planet has seen an average increase of roughly 1.5 degrees in the last 100 years, the northern reaches of the province have warmed by 5.4 degrees and temperatures in central regions have increased by 3.6 degrees.​

 

[SwimExpert]

good gawd, a rambling essay worthy of an English 101 class, but not a Logic 101 class

If your logic class told you to simply take the popular idea at face value, then you should ask for a refund.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante: "good gawd, a rambling essay worthy of an English 101 class, but not a Logic 101 class"

If your logic class told you to simply take the popular idea at face value, then you should ask for a refund.

Simply take the popular idea at face value? I like that Merriam - Webster has three distinct definitions for the adjective popular.

(a): liked or enjoyed by many people (b): accepted, followed, used, or done by many people (c): of, relating to, or coming from most of the people in a country, society, or group


A consensus in the scientific community is popular only in the sense of (c): of, relating to, or coming from most of the people in a country, society, or group. Logic here would dictate go with the fastest horse. It may feel good to your fragile little ego to think of yourself as a heroic and brave outlier, but in reality you're nothing more or less than a sophomoric, contrarian poser. Your feelings get in the way of whatever logic you struggle to grasp

 

[FA_Q2]

What is it with these amateur climate scientists and their graphs and images as if they actually know what they are talking about and funnier -- as if they are actually qualified to debate the science?

Not much different than your asinine assertion in consensus.

The concept of consensus does not exist in science. Nothing in science relies on consensus - it relies on observable measurements, repeatable controlled experimentation and predictive models that can be verified.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

FA_Q2

What is it with these amateur climate scientists and their graphs and images as if they actually know what they are talking about and funnier -- as if they are actually qualified to debate the science?

Not much different than your asinine assertion in consensus.

The concept of consensus does not exist in science. Nothing in science relies on consensus - it relies on observable measurements, repeatable controlled experimentation and predictive models that can be verified.

there you go again. No one has ever said or implied the science itself relies on consensus. The consensus goes to what the science means or predict and how to view it

You people have taken misrepresenting the usage and meanings of words into the gutter with your ideological dis-ease with science

 

[FA_Q2]

FA_Q2

What is it with these amateur climate scientists and their graphs and images as if they actually know what they are talking about and funnier -- as if they are actually qualified to debate the science?

Not much different than your asinine assertion in consensus.

The concept of consensus does not exist in science. Nothing in science relies on consensus - it relies on observable measurements, repeatable controlled experimentation and predictive models that can be verified.

there you go again. No one has ever said or implied the science itself relies on consensus. The consensus goes to what the science means or predict and how to view it

You people have taken misrepresenting the usage and meanings of words into the gutter with your ideological dis-ease with science

Just took your words - you follow the 'consensus' when such a concept is utterly counter to science in general. Sorry you had to say something so nonsensical but don't blame the rest of us when you do.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Just took your words - you follow the 'consensus' when such a concept is utterly counter to science in general. Sorry you had to say something so nonsensical but don't blame the rest of us when you do.

nope.


when people say 'there is a consensus about the science' you hear it as saying the consensus is the science. Stuck on stupid. thank you FOX News and the Koch brothers

the media that influences your thought process is killing your brain

 

[SwimExpert]

Logic here would dictate go with the fastest horse.

Yeah, you definitely need a refund on that class.

We are told that such and such a breakfast food, or cigarette, or motor car is "best" because "everyone knows it." But popular acceptance of a policy does not prove it to be wise....general assent to a claim does not prove it to be rue. To argue in this way is to commit the ad populum fallacy.

 

[SwimExpert]

No one has ever said or implied the science itself relies on consensus. The consensus goes to what the science means or predict and how to view it

In fact, you have said as much. You admitted that you don't actually know the science first hand; your conclusions about what the science means and how to view it is 100% predicated on a consensus, and nothing more.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Logic here would dictate go with the fastest horse.

Yeah, you definitely need a refund on that class.

We are told that such and such a breakfast food, or cigarette, or motor car is "best" because "everyone knows it." But popular acceptance of a policy does not prove it to be wise....general assent to a claim does not prove it to be rue. To argue in this way is to commit the ad populum fallacy.

D'Oh! "Best' being a preference for something

The world wide web has killed the old fashioned autodidact. Googling versus learning

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No one has ever said or implied the science itself relies on consensus. The consensus goes to what the science means or predict and how to view it

In fact, you have said as much. You admitted that you don't actually know the science first hand; your conclusions about what the science means and how to view it is 100% predicated on a consensus, and nothing more.

what the science means and how to view it is NOT the science itself. gawd, where did you people crawl out from?

 

[SwimExpert]

Logic here would dictate go with the fastest horse.

Yeah, you definitely need a refund on that class.

We are told that such and such a breakfast food, or cigarette, or motor car is "best" because "everyone knows it." But popular acceptance of a policy does not prove it to be wise....general assent to a claim does not prove it to be rue. To argue in this way is to commit the ad populum fallacy.

D'Oh! "Best' being a preference for something

So....you are rejecting the teachings of logic?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Those who refer to themselves in the third person usually have serious egotism and narcissism issues.
Just an observation. No dog in the fight.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Logic here would dictate go with the fastest horse.

Yeah, you definitely need a refund on that class.

We are told that such and such a breakfast food, or cigarette, or motor car is "best" because "everyone knows it." But popular acceptance of a policy does not prove it to be wise....general assent to a claim does not prove it to be rue. To argue in this way is to commit the ad populum fallacy.

D'Oh! "Best' being a preference for something

So....you are rejecting the teachings of logic?

you are lost

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Those who refer to themselves in the third person usually have serious egotism and narcissism issues.
Just an observation. No dog in the fight.

Bob Dole

 

[SwimExpert]

you are lost

I showed you the textbook, but I'm the one who's lost? If it were anyone else I'd think you were stupid. But I know that's not the case. You're just being stubborn. It would be easier for you to just recognize that you've misspoken here. Logic does not demand going with the consensus. Indeed, simply following the consensus is a logical fallacy. But don't take my word for it. Read it in the book.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

you are lost

I showed you the textbook, but I'm the one who's lost? If it were anyone else I'd think you were stupid. But I know that's not the case. You're just being stubborn. It would be easier for you to just recognize that you've misspoken here. Logic does not demand going with the consensus. Indeed, simply following the consensus is a logical fallacy. But don't take my word for it. Read it in the book.

what you did was go off then rails.

you misunderstood what an example of preferences and opinions like 'best' was about. It did not apply here.

I can't give you that much more time if you're going to show yourself to consistently be a moron

 

[SwimExpert]

you misunderstood what an example of preferences and opinions like 'best' was about. It did not apply here.

Dante, I like you. I don't think we agree on many things overall, but I appreciate your style. You treat this board like it was one of those debates we saw last night. Always looking for some zinger or retort that will resonate with an external audience. Always trying to maneuver and shape the discussion, as if the words were pawns in a chess game.

Take the current situation as an example. You know damn well what an ad populum fallacy is. You understand it perfectly well. You know that the text book passage I posted has nothing to do with how to compare preferences and opinions. It's about the inherent fallacy of subscribing to an idea based on it being commonly accepted by many people.

I do believe your struggle is real, though. You're trying to balance the fact that deferring to an expert is a rational action against the apparent paradox of deferring to a collection of experts as alternately fallacious. Your mistake is a subtle one; you're relying on expert opinion as if it were deductively conclusive where it only provides inductive weight.

 

[American_Jihad]

Culture Wars: Volume V of the Black Book of the American Left
David Horowitz's new book unveils the forty years of lost wars that have brought America to its present low.
November 30, 2015
Jay Nordlinger

To order “The Black Book of the American Left, Volume V: Culture Wars," Click Here. We encourage our readers to visit BlackBookOfTheAmericanLeft.com – which features David Horowitz’s introductions to Volumes 1-5 of this 10-volume series, along with their tables of contents, reviews and interviews with the author.

One of my least favorite modern phrases is “gets it.” So-and-so “gets it,” and so-and-so “doesn’t get it.” But sometimes I find the phrase handy. And David Horowitz gets it. Gets what?

Well, many things, but he certainly gets the Left, from which he comes. As readers of this magazine don’t need to be told, Horowitz made one of the most famous, and consequential, journeys from left to right in recent history. He knows the Left from the inside out. He has their number, as we used to say. (“Gets it,” frankly, was sexual.)

Abigail Thernstrom is another intellectual who traveled from left to right. During the 1990s, she told me that she’d had an interesting conversation with an academic associated with the Clinton administration. He said that he would no longer engage in public debates with her. Why? “Because, Abby, you know what I’m going to say before I say it, and you know why I’m going to say it.”

Any leftist who debates David Horowitz is taking his life into his hands. Maybe that’s why so few agree to do it.

Horowitz is embarked on a tremendous publishing project: The Black Book of the American Left: The Collected Conservative Writings of David Horowitz. I remember how glad I was in 1997 when The Black Book of Communism came out. It documented the crimes of that gang, worldwide. In his collection, Horowitz is now up to Volume V, headed “Culture Wars.”

The volume is organized in five parts: “The Progressive Party Line”; “Media Culture”; “Sexual Politics”; “Feminist Assaults”; and “The Government’s Left-wing Network” (i.e., public broadcasting). It all begins with an introduction by Horowitz, which is worth the price of admission alone.

...

For some 35 years, he has been screaming at us, “These people really hate you!” (“These people” being the Left.) “They are intent on destroying you. Don’t you realize that?” I realize that, yes, and one of the people who helped me to, many years ago, when I was learning about the world, was Horowitz.

Reading Volume V of his magnificent collection made me sad, for two reasons. First, I thought, “Those who need to read this, won’t. Those who need to know this, won’t. David is preaching to the choir. I wish he could preach to the nation at large.”

But then I remembered that I found him -- as I found Norman Podhoretz, Bill Buckley, and many others. No teacher or professor assigned them to me. But I found them. And maybe other people will find David, and these volumes?

The second thing that made me sad was this: Après lui, qui? After David, who? Who gets the Left like this, who has its number, who remembers everything that happened, who remembers where they bodies are buried (literally, in the case of the Panthers’ victims), who will scream at us, when we need screaming? Who? But at least we have The Black Book of the American Left, a repository of vital information and thought, indeed of truth.

Culture Wars: Volume V of the Black Book of the American Left