Bob8 Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I am a nice person and fed up of having to be rude to idiots. May I please have a thread on which only non-stupid people are allowed, i.e. this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garry AKA Pod Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I am a nice person and fed up of having to be rude to idiots.May I please have a thread on which only non-stupid people are allowed, i.e. this one? No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 What's your definition of non stupid ? Is that simply anyone who disagrees with what you say ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 What's your definition of non stupid ?Is that simply anyone who disagrees with what you say ? More someone who does not think their own imagination is more worthwhile than expert research. As a leftie, I am in a minority here. Fair 'nuff. If you humour my presence I would be grateful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 No Ahhhh! Please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pick It Down Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Ahhhh!Please! I find it interesting that you do not consider that "experts" are human and may be warped by external influences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 I find it interesting that you do not consider that "experts" are human and may be warped by external influences. I find it interesting that people who have seriously researched the subject, despite coming from a range of political opinions and backgrounds tend to arrive at a similar opinion on the fundementals of the matter. People who have not looked into it tend to be far more mixed and likely to be aligned against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 More someone who does not think their own imagination is more worthwhile than expert research.As a leftie, I am in a minority here. Fair 'nuff. If you humour my presence I would be grateful. It's difficult. The world is becoming a lot more complicated. Fewer and fewer people can understand the more advanced scientific research, and those that do have to study in the field for years. Climate change, stem cell research etc, these things are important to all of us and we should all take an interest. At the end of the day I think I'd rather people were interested in these issues than not at all. Even if their opinions are rather, ahem, interesting. Besides, seeing some of the drivel that masquerades as "scientific fact" on this forum makes me laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 It's difficult. The world is becoming a lot more complicated. Fewer and fewer people can understand the more advanced scientific research, and those that do have to study in the field for years.Climate change, stem cell research etc, these things are important to all of us and we should all take an interest. At the end of the day I think I'd rather people were interested in these issues than not at all. Even if their opinions are rather, ahem, interesting. Besides, seeing some of the drivel that masquerades as "scientific fact" on this forum makes me laugh. True. Unfortunately, we do have to take peoples' word for things, but be careful about quite how much credibility we give. It is depressing that people who claim to be critical will doubt the Royal Society collection of scientific opinion on the basis of a few media articles, which has more credibility. We should be critical and, to a certain extent, cynical, but we should be equally cynical when the findings do not fit our view. I do think we should all take an interest. My own views on stem research are very conservative, but this is a moral and not a scientifically based desicion. In these debates, I think the difference is important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 True. Unfortunately, we do have to take peoples' word for things, but be careful about quite how much credibility we give. It is depressing that people who claim to be critical will doubt the Royal Society collection of scientific opinion on the basis of a few media articles, which has more credibility. We should be critical and, to a certain extent, cynical, but we should be equally cynical when the findings do not fit our view.I do think we should all take an interest. My own views on stem research are very conservative, but this is a moral and not a scientifically based desicion. In these debates, I think the difference is important. Why do you not see climate change as a moral issue ? After all, if we are causing damage to the environment, isn't it destroying our childrens home in the same way that stem cell research could damage their genetic heritage ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 Why do you not see climate change as a moral issue ?After all, if we are causing damage to the environment, isn't it destroying our childrens home in the same way that stem cell research could damage their genetic heritage ? People who have researched tend to come to pretty similar conclusions, independent of their politics. I find this significant. It suggests those who have not researched and come hold strongly opposed opinions are basing it on something other than science. I do not like the idea of stem cell research that involves aborting a foetus and would be delighted if research found it to be unacceptable, I can imagine people equally latching on to any sign that what they assume is right and wrong is correct scientifically. It might be an absurd parody of a Moral Rights philosophy, where each person has the right to his own property and person and no moral obligation, beyond that of respecting the rights of others. It is a very conservative thought and it is not (I suspect) a co-incidence that those on the right are doubtful about AGW. For them to then claim that all scientists in the area are the ones influenced by politics does seem a bit rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 ? If being a leftie does not make me in the minorty, then excuse me, I am mistaken. However, if people will argue the scientific community is wrong, without going to the effort to undertake a proper investigation, then I find that arrogant (even more so than I come across). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Sorry, I didn't completely understand that. Are you suggesting that the scientific case for climate change is so overwhelming that it ceases to become a moral issue ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 If being a leftie does not make me in the minorty, then excuse me, I am mistaken.However, if people will argue the scientific community is wrong, without going to the effort to undertake a proper investigation, then I find that arrogant (even more so than I come across). I think that's a bit harsh, because who can possibly understand the research ? The climate modelling is massively sophisticated, with lots of independent/dependent variables and coupled equations. It's not mathematically simple. There is huge debate over whether the individual effects are modelled properly. It it reasonable to expect any average person to be able to take an informed viewpoint (by your definition) on something of such complexity ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 Sorry, I didn't completely understand that.Are you suggesting that the scientific case for climate change is so overwhelming that it ceases to become a moral issue ? I am saying that the scientific argument is, essentially, won. There is a point at which it would be more honest to raise the actual objections to the climate change debate. I can acknowledge that the climate argument was certainly lept on by an element of the left, which is a shame. There are still very worthwhile debates, which are overshadowed by arguing nonsense. Our Sceptical Environmentalist makes the point that the money spent on tackling climate change would be better spent on tackling world povety. Where I would disagree with him, is that it is realistic to think that the moeny would be spent in that way. Certainly, I think the main priority for China should be bringing people of of real povety. For wealthier countries, I feel we have more responsibility environmentally. This is a political argument (and arguably a moral issue), but one that is not had, due to people spouting nonsense about the science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Skinty Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 May I please have a thread on which only non-stupid people are allowed, i.e. this one? What about intelligent people that act stupidly? There's a lot of them about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 What about intelligent people that act stupidly? There's a lot of them about. Indeed! One of the things that sparked my interest in many of the apparently counter-science discussions was just that. In Europe we tend to assume that creationist are stupid, but I do not believe it is that straight forward. I suspect it is when their understanding of science seems to oppose their moral code. For creationists, who are brought up with biblical literalism, they face (as they see it) a choice between goodness and morality or evolution. Faced with that choice I would choose the former. Even those who are not brought up with literalism are (falsely) asked to believe in a world of the survival is the strongest with Neitzsche like implications, it is a false understanding of evolution, but many in Europe who dismiss creationists as stupid have no fuller understanding. Perhaps I am over-analyzing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickywackywoo Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 ? I was thinking something along the lines of "I'm a leftie but I'm not stupid." Does not compute, does not compute... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 I was thinking something along the lines of "I'm a leftie but I'm not stupid."Does not compute, does not compute... Ah! I see! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Realist 8 Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 This has to be the dumbest thread ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Indeed! One of the things that sparked my interest in many of the apparently counter-science discussions was just that. In Europe we tend to assume that creationist are stupid, but I do not believe it is that straight forward. I suspect it is when their understanding of science seems to oppose their moral code. For creationists, who are brought up with biblical literalism, they face (as they see it) a choice between goodness and morality or evolution. Faced with that choice I would choose the former. Even those who are not brought up with literalism are (falsely) asked to believe in a world of the survival is the strongest with Neitzsche like implications, it is a false understanding of evolution, but many in Europe who dismiss creationists as stupid have no fuller understanding. Perhaps I am over-analyzing? My opinion is there is no such thing as certainty, only probability. I believe, for example, that the moon landings took place (probably greater than 95%). But the idea that they didn't take place is not, IMO, wholly implausible. Similarly with religion. If we have no consistent theory for how the universe started (and many leading theorists argue that it will be impossible to ever know) how do we know that it was not started by a super intelligence ? I think it's improbable, but not impossible that this is the case. To people who say there is no god, I say, maybe they have a better theory ? After all, the super intelligent guys at CERN have been working on it for a good few years - and they haven't come up with any consistent way of how the universe works yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Realist Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Indeed! One of the things that sparked my interest in many of the apparently counter-science discussions was just that. In Europe we tend to assume that creationist are stupid, but I do not believe it is that straight forward. I suspect it is when their understanding of science seems to oppose their moral code. For creationists, who are brought up with biblical literalism, they face (as they see it) a choice between goodness and morality or evolution. Faced with that choice I would choose the former. Even those who are not brought up with literalism are (falsely) asked to believe in a world of the survival is the strongest with Neitzsche like implications, it is a false understanding of evolution, but many in Europe who dismiss creationists as stupid have no fuller understanding. Perhaps I am over-analyzing? I wondered how long before evolution was mentioned. Creationism is a faith based position and as such cannot be disproved. Nearly all scientists are convinced by the evidence for evolution. However there is a difference because if a scientist is shown compelling evidence that evolution is false then they would accept it. A creationist would/will never accept evoution no matter how much evidence is presented. That's enough on that topic. I don't want to sound like Richard Dawkins. What upsets me most is the phrase 'scientists don't know everything'. No real scientist would claim to know everything. This phrase is usually used when compelling scientific evidence is presented on a subject but the person doesn't wish to accept it or act upon it. Examples are numerous but smoking is the most obvious. One other rant. Have you noticed that whenever a sentence begins with 'the fact is ....' you are then nearly always given an opinion not a fact? If something is a fact then you don't need to state that it is e.g 'Today is Friday'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 My opinion is there is no such thing as certainty, only probability.I believe, for example, that the moon landings took place (probably greater than 95%). But the idea that they didn't take place is not, IMO, wholly implausible. Similarly with religion. If we have no consistent theory for how the universe started (and many leading theorists argue that it will be impossible to ever know) how do we know that it was not started by a super intelligence ? I think it's improbable, but not impossible that this is the case. To people who say there is no god, I say, maybe they have a better theory ? After all, the super intelligent guys at CERN have been working on it for a good few years - and they haven't come up with any consistent way of how the universe works yet. I would broadly agree with that. I find the business of science is to understand how God's Universe works, but I do not claim I can justify that scientifically and have no time for those who would claim they did. Also, I believe there absolutes, but we will not discover them. The best science can do is construct a model of reality, with increasingly better and possibly resembles reality more closely. Again, however, I can not pretend I can offer scientific evidence for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 I wondered how long before evolution was mentioned.Creationism is a faith based position and as such cannot be disproved. Nearly all scientists are convinced by the evidence for evolution. However there is a difference because if a scientist is shown compelling evidence that evolution is false then they would accept it. A creationist would/will never accept evoution no matter how much evidence is presented. That's enough on that topic. I don't want to sound like Richard Dawkins. What upsets me most is the phrase 'scientists don't know everything'. No real scientist would claim to know everything. This phrase is usually used when compelling scientific evidence is presented on a subject but the person doesn't wish to accept it or act upon it. Examples are numerous but smoking is the most obvious. One other rant. Have you noticed that whenever a sentence begins with 'the fact is ....' you are then nearly always given an opinion not a fact? If something is a fact then you don't need to state that it is e.g 'Today is Friday'. I must agree with every word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blankster Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I'm a leftie too but I relish doing battle with the fascists and little-Englanders! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.