Ice, again

[SwimExpert]

Jesus Christ! I can't even ask a legitimate question! GO fuck yourself if I can't even try to learn from the same sources. Albeit I doubt I'd be learning anything new since my degree in philosophy was from an accredited university (Ohio Wesleyan) with a specialization in logic and analytical philosophy.

Someone graduates at the top...some one graduates at the bottom. Sorry about that. If you have a degree in philosophy, it was wasted.

Swim has never sat in on a logic class. Swim has never passed a logic class. The first week of logic 340 involves quick review of fallacies so that you can convert regular sentences into syllogisms, p's and q's, and ., < or >, iff or if etc.. You have no idea what this means. Swim has no idea what this means. It's advanced logic and I assure you Swim is consistently mis-applying each fallacy. It's clearly another case of Dunning and Krueger.

And yet, you don't seem to be able to string half a dozen words together without constructing a fallacy.....and it seems that those suffering from dunning kruger are the first to claim that others are afflicted.

Actually, he incorrectly invokes Dunning-Kruger anyway. They never said, nor did their work imply, that the incompetent tend to believe themselves superior to others. Just that the incompetent tend to perceive themselves as more competent then they actually are. They still tend to view themselves as less competent than those who are indeed more competent. Meanwhile, the most competent tend to view themselves as less competent than they are. Yet still they tend to perceive themselves as more competent than those who aren't.

The thing that is truly priceless, is that his interpretation of Dunning-Kruger is fallacy.

 

[flacaltenn]

An alternate view of D-Kruger is that there's not really much diff in how the population views their abilities.
And that test scores don't have an informing effect. But the obvious corrollary to most folks OVERESTIMATING their abilities, is that the important upper quartile are modest and humble compared to the vast masses..

Thats' what the chart says anyway.. Your actual life experience may tell you otherwise.

 

[SwimExpert]

An alternate view of D-Kruger is that there's not really much diff in how the population views their abilities.
And that test scores don't have an informing effect

True, as nearly all people seem to put themselves within a 55-70 percentile range. Though, I'm not sure what you mean in that test scores don't have an informing effect. IIRC, the research done did not explore whether people's self perception changed after their objective measurements were taken. I'd have to go back and re-read.

 

[gnarlylove]

It's evident in every post you think you are 100% correct. Not in just this instance, or climate...it's a matter of every single issue you come to, you think you have definitive answers. When you respond, you don't aim to make well reasoned arguments (though you believe they are), you try to vanquish your opponent as if we were in a Roman Colosseum.

In fact, your disapproval, nay, your odium towards any person (not merely their beliefs) is so crass, you insist they don't know english as a first language. That they are just obviously the most pathetic harebrained humans to have ever walked this earth. That chimps have better rationality and conclusions. Of course some of you are slightly less crude but it's still evident your disagreement stems from having zero tolerance for opposition/disagreement. You never question yourselves because it would mean your mental levies of repression would burst in your brain. Instead you ceaselessly repeat your mantra of how ill-informed your opponents are. This is fucking ridiculous. You need to lay off the cocaine or conservative cocktail of prescription drugs cause this is not how debate works. This is not a healthy way to deal with disagreement.

You start by assuming you can never be wrong. Then you gather in group think and confirm the chatter by repeating your slogans (many sent down from HQ--policy think tanks). This reverberation makes your hearts sing because this sort of confirmation of your ideas doesn't happen unless you insulate yourselves from the world.

I can't help notice the link between climate change denial, free-market fetishism, xenophobia and inability to genuinely listen or respectfully disagree aka sympathy. Moreover, they think homeless or entitlement folks have no right to food or shelter if they didn't earn it and this comes from their under-evolved brain that lacks empathy. Thus private gain, self-aggrandizement and capitalism go hand in hand.

The patterns are so evident to anyone outside your group think but it is not to yourselves, of course. All the replies to this post will reflect that. All replies to any thread has and will denote this fact. You are incapable of treating an opposing view as a potentially valid. Few days back there was a wild claim of falsifiability that fits this to a T. I think it was SSDD claiming climate change is false because it's unfalsifiable and then gives us reasons to falsify the damn thing just to shore up his "bag of facts" in case we weren't convinced of his 100% logical argument. The bag is empty and it imploded.

This brief blog makes a similar connection.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g"]The video is well made and certainly supports this thesis.[/ame]

So go ahead and fling mud at me but the real deal is we can't have meaningful discussion if you think the way you do. This is a complete waste of my time cause I'm not here to engage in group think. It's sad when group think becomes insidious behavior that supports really bad stock pile of beliefs. But hey, whatever keeps the world from changing we must do it. Any lifestyle that respects the environment is of the devil. Any policy that actually treats our fellow men and women as equal by giving them necessary food and love/respect and genuine equal opportunity is also pure evil.

"HEY HEY HO HO, Western Civ's got to STAY! HEY HEY HO HO let's keep the Status Quo!"

 

[westwall]

It's evident in every post you think you are 100% correct. Not in just this instance, or climate...it's a matter of every single issue you come to, you think you have definitive answers. When you respond, you don't aim to make well reasoned arguments (though you believe they are), you try to vanquish your opponent as if we were in a Roman Colosseum.

In fact, your disapproval, nay, your odium towards any person (not merely their beliefs) is so crass, you insist they don't know english as a first language. That they are just obviously the most pathetic harebrained humans to have ever walked this earth. That chimps have better rationality and conclusions. Of course some of you are slightly less crude but it's still evident your disagreement stems from having zero tolerance for opposition/disagreement. You never question yourselves because it would mean your mental levies of repression would burst in your brain. Instead you ceaselessly repeat your mantra of how ill-informed your opponents are. This is fucking ridiculous. You need to lay off the cocaine or conservative cocktail of prescription drugs cause this is not how debate works. This is not a healthy way to deal with disagreement.

You start by assuming you can never be wrong. Then you gather in group think and confirm the chatter by repeating your slogans (many sent down from HQ--policy think tanks). This reverberation makes your hearts sing because this sort of confirmation of your ideas doesn't happen unless you insulate yourselves from the world.

I can't help notice the link between climate change denial, free-market fetishism, xenophobia and inability to genuinely listen or respectfully disagree aka sympathy. Moreover, they think homeless or entitlement folks have no right to food or shelter if they didn't earn it and this comes from their under-evolved brain that lacks empathy. Thus private gain, self-aggrandizement and capitalism go hand in hand.

The patterns are so evident to anyone outside your group think but it is not to yourselves, of course. All the replies to this post will reflect that. All replies to any thread has and will denote this fact. You are incapable of treating an opposing view as a potentially valid. Few days back there was a wild claim of falsifiability that fits this to a T. I think it was SSDD claiming climate change is false because it's unfalsifiable and then gives us reasons to falsify the damn thing just to shore up his "bag of facts" in case we weren't convinced of his 100% logical argument. The bag is empty and it imploded.

This brief blog makes a similar connection.
The video is well made and certainly supports this thesis.

So go ahead and fling mud at me but the real deal is we can't have meaningful discussion if you think the way you do. This is a complete waste of my time cause I'm not here to engage in group think. It's sad when group think becomes insidious behavior that supports really bad stock pile of beliefs. But hey, whatever keeps the world from changing we must do it. Any lifestyle that respects the environment is of the devil. Any policy that actually treats our fellow men and women as equal by giving them necessary food and love/respect and genuine equal opportunity is also pure evil.

"HEY HEY HO HO, Western Civ's got to STAY! HEY HEY HO HO let's keep the Status Quo!"

No we have never claimed that we are 100% correct. That is simply a lie or you're too stupid to understand what is being said.

We state UNEQUIVOCALLY, that we don't know what is happening when it comes to climate (unlike you guys). What we do stipulate is that everything that you guys point to as evidence of global warming has happened in the past to a much greater extent.

We also STIPULATE that you guys violate the scientific method at every turn. We also STIPULATE that when it comes to math and computer models you guys suck. Plain and simply you couldn't calculate your way out of a McDonalds.

Those are the facts.

 

[SSDD]

No we have never claimed that we are 100% correct. That is simply a lie or you're too stupid to understand what is being said.

He assumes he is 100 percent correct as he participates in a little circle jerk with his stroking buds. Hilarious. They invariably accuse others of the very behavior they routinely engage in.

 

[Abraham3]

Swim has never sat in on a logic class. Swim has never passed a logic class. The first week of logic 340 involves quick review of fallacies so that you can convert regular sentences into syllogisms, p's and q's, and ., < or >, iff or if etc.. You have no idea what this means. Swim has no idea what this means. It's advanced logic and I assure you Swim is consistently mis-applying each fallacy. It's clearly another case of Dunning and Krueger.

You don't know me, nor anything about me.

You gave us your fucking life story.

And aside from that, we know you by the mistakes you make.

 

[Abraham3]

You think his repeated goofs and failures indicate a better grasp? Can we take that as indicative of your general ability to judge the evidence before you?

That's a real hoot -- since I was thinking -- How come a guy so fixated on the foundations of logic has such a hard time understanding that you can't claim that 97% of respondents in a class agree with a certain assertion when the VAST MAJORITY percentage of them expressed NO opinion? The logic failure there -- is all I need to know..

That is a hoot, since the qualifications of those in the ~97% group, in all the various surveys and polls in which it appears, are clearly defined. There is no logic failure.

And, as you know perfectly well, anyone who can read and who has gone to the trouble of reviewing the recent exchanges between Swimexpert and myself will be fully aware that he fucked up every single chance he got. And, based on his ridiculous statement about Argument from Authority and evidence, he was getting his shit from Wikipedia, just like me. He just doesn't seem to have paid as much attention to what he was reading.

 

[Abraham3]

Swim, where did you learn logic? Or are you still learning it? Is it a textbook or website?

Many textbooks. I got rid of most of them as time went on. But then I lost my favorite one about 5 years ago while moving. Didn't realize just how attached I had gotten to the thing until I was 2000 miles away, and realized that it was gone, presumably sitting in a cardboard box in front of a public Library's doorstep. I was really, truly upset. Felt almost silly about it. Irreplaceable.

Oh wait. This got me all nostalgic so I popped over to Amazon to see what I might be able to find. Low and behold!

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/B000UCTBVM]Introduction to Logic: Irving M. Copi: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Don't you think that if you had taken more than one class in logic, your favorite textbook would not be "Introduction to..."?

 

[Abraham3]

The ridiculous part is that he freely admits that he's not exactly up to speed on the finer points of logic. His understanding is so rudimentary we may as well be back to weighing neutrinos, or determining atomic mass by counting neutrons.

I guess we might as well.

You never told us how much logic school work you'd had. Any particular reason why?

 

[Abraham3]

No we have never claimed that we are 100% correct. That is simply a lie or your too stupid to understand what is being said.

We state UNEQUIVOCALLY, that we don't know what is happening when it comes to climate (unlike you guys).

I'm not sure who your "we" might consist of, but that statement is certainly not true for FlaCalTenn and it is certainly not true regarding contentions expressed around here about climate scientists, both general and particular.

What we do stipulate is that everything that you guys point to as evidence of global warming has happened in the past to a much greater extent.

Some things have happened before. Somethings have not. But you fail to provide any relevance. Humans have never released gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere before. Humans by the billions have never gathered on the world's coastlines before. CO2 has never been at its current level at any time in the past 800,000 years. CO2 levels have not increased at the rate they have over the last 150 years since the KT Boundary incident 65 million years ago.

We also STIPULATE that you guys violate the scientific method at every turn. We also STIPULATE that when it comes to math and computer models you guys suck. Plain and simply you couldn't calculate your way out of a McDonalds.

You STIPULATE these things? I think a visit to the dictionary is called for cause your English is hurtin'. You have made charges that peer review has been compromised and that data have been unjustifiably modified, but you've never proven any of that. On the topic of data adjustments, I asked you to simply identify a set you thought had been adjusted without due cause. I saw no response. Climate scientists have made numerous GCMs and run them thousands of times with a multitude of parameters and functions. It is an ongoing project. However, the success of those models to predict the climates behavior has been orders of magnitude (literally) than the models produced by people that reject AGW.

Our math skills are essentially irrelevant. The math skills of the folks writing those models is not. But I'm quite certain it's way, way, way better than yours.

Those are the facts.

And you claim to have a PhD? I said this before and I'll say it again: given almost ALL of the things you say here, that is simply not believable.

 

[gnarlylove]

Stipulation is a new concept to me. I haven't seen it one bit from you. There's a lot of demands but no bargain or compromise going on here. It's been one way street each post: "you fukin' rong *grunt* i rite evrytime! *double grunt*" Whether it has science-y words in it or not, it has this precise pattern every time. No compromise.

Only when I call you out on it do you claim to stipulate. What do you care anyway? When have you been wrong? Never. So what stipulation is going on here? The part where you allow me the chance to admit I'm wrong? Give me a break!

OLDE SSDD sayin' I think I'm right all the time...his vomit of lies shows he has no response except to turn the volume up and tune out criticism. Then repeat what I said about me. Brilliant. You lunatics surprise me everytime and I know it's coming!!!

 

[SSDD]

OLDE SSDD sayin' I think I'm right all the time...his vomit of lies shows he has no response except to turn the volume up and tune out criticism. Then repeat what I said about me. Brilliant. You lunatics surprise me everytime and I know it's coming!!!

Feel free to post any lies I have told to prove that you aren't a liar. Again typical of you guys to accuse others of the very thing you are doing. Who did you learn it from. Goebbels?

 

[gnarlylove]

He assumes he is 100 percent correct...

I've admitted my fallibility plenty of times. Let me do it now for old times sake: I am human and I've been wrong on major things before. But then you have the audacity to say:

They invariably accuse others of the very behavior they routinely engage in.

You have precisely done this by saying I think I'm always right but you fail to recognize your own tactic. It couldn't be more evident but it zips over your head.

 

[SwimExpert]

I can't help notice the link between climate change denial, free-market fetishism, xenophobia and inability to genuinely listen or respectfully disagree aka sympathy. Moreover, they think homeless or entitlement folks have no right to food or shelter if they didn't earn it and this comes from their under-evolved brain that lacks empathy. Thus private gain, self-aggrandizement and capitalism go hand in hand.

Holy shit.

 

[SwimExpert]

You gave us your fucking life story.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWj39zCABUI&feature=youtu.be]My life story - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

It's evident in every post you think you are 100% correct. Not in just this instance, or climate...it's a matter of every single issue you come to, you think you have definitive answers. When you respond, you don't aim to make well reasoned arguments (though you believe they are), you try to vanquish your opponent as if we were in a Roman Colosseum.

In fact, your disapproval, nay, your odium towards any person (not merely their beliefs) is so crass, you insist they don't know english as a first language. That they are just obviously the most pathetic harebrained humans to have ever walked this earth. That chimps have better rationality and conclusions. Of course some of you are slightly less crude but it's still evident your disagreement stems from having zero tolerance for opposition/disagreement. You never question yourselves because it would mean your mental levies of repression would burst in your brain. Instead you ceaselessly repeat your mantra of how ill-informed your opponents are. This is fucking ridiculous. You need to lay off the cocaine or conservative cocktail of prescription drugs cause this is not how debate works. This is not a healthy way to deal with disagreement.

You start by assuming you can never be wrong. Then you gather in group think and confirm the chatter by repeating your slogans (many sent down from HQ--policy think tanks). This reverberation makes your hearts sing because this sort of confirmation of your ideas doesn't happen unless you insulate yourselves from the world.

I can't help notice the link between climate change denial, free-market fetishism, xenophobia and inability to genuinely listen or respectfully disagree aka sympathy. Moreover, they think homeless or entitlement folks have no right to food or shelter if they didn't earn it and this comes from their under-evolved brain that lacks empathy. Thus private gain, self-aggrandizement and capitalism go hand in hand.

The patterns are so evident to anyone outside your group think but it is not to yourselves, of course. All the replies to this post will reflect that. All replies to any thread has and will denote this fact. You are incapable of treating an opposing view as a potentially valid. Few days back there was a wild claim of falsifiability that fits this to a T. I think it was SSDD claiming climate change is false because it's unfalsifiable and then gives us reasons to falsify the damn thing just to shore up his "bag of facts" in case we weren't convinced of his 100% logical argument. The bag is empty and it imploded.

This brief blog makes a similar connection.
The video is well made and certainly supports this thesis.

So go ahead and fling mud at me but the real deal is we can't have meaningful discussion if you think the way you do. This is a complete waste of my time cause I'm not here to engage in group think. It's sad when group think becomes insidious behavior that supports really bad stock pile of beliefs. But hey, whatever keeps the world from changing we must do it. Any lifestyle that respects the environment is of the devil. Any policy that actually treats our fellow men and women as equal by giving them necessary food and love/respect and genuine equal opportunity is also pure evil.

"HEY HEY HO HO, Western Civ's got to STAY! HEY HEY HO HO let's keep the Status Quo!"

No we have never claimed that we are 100% correct. That is simply a lie or you're too stupid to understand what is being said.

We state UNEQUIVOCALLY, that we don't know what is happening when it comes to climate (unlike you guys). What we do stipulate is that everything that you guys point to as evidence of global warming has happened in the past to a much greater extent.

We also STIPULATE that you guys violate the scientific method at every turn. We also STIPULATE that when it comes to math and computer models you guys suck. Plain and simply you couldn't calculate your way out of a McDonalds.

Those are the facts.

Well now, Dr. Hansen's peer reviewed articles have contained much math. And I have seen little critisim of his math. As one of the leading atmospheric physicists in the world, Dr. Hansen's publications carry a bit more weight than the rantings of someone on an internet message board.

 

[SwimExpert]

Don't you think that if you had taken more than one class in logic, your favorite textbook would not be "Introduction to..."?

Don't you think that if my favorite was going to be a book from an Intro class it would be something a little more recent than a 1953 edition? Especially since there are now some 3 million editions of Copi's book.

The reason it's my favorite is twofold.

1) It's the book from which I taught myself during the summer between my sophomore and junior years in high school. Years before I ever took a class on the subject.

2) Of all logic books I've read, I consider it by far the best. It does the most, teaches the most, reaches the farthest, offers the fullest preparation, of any single textbook I've ever come across.

 

[Abraham3]

You've never had a class in logic, have you.

That goes a ways to explaining all your basic errors.

 

[SwimExpert]

Nope, never. Not one. I'm completely ignorant and clueless. My other personality has a PhD, however.