Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Rush Limbaugh: Hurricanes are a liberal conspiracy for promoting climate change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    So your "refutations" basically amount to, "I don't entirely disagree with the way the numbers were fudged." But you don't disagree that they were fudged to one extent or another.
    More like "I looked for the fudgings and couldn't find any, and in the one where I could find something"

    Comment


    • (Saw your edit, waiting for a bus thankfully )

      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      I mean, don't you find it just a little suspicious that all the "adjustments" are only ever in favor of the "global warming" hypothesis?
      Actually one of them was very light 'against' global warming. The -0.3mm/year adjustment to ocean level rising mildly decreases our expectations of those ocean level risings. I seriously couldn't find them adding a fudge factor of +0.3mm/year to cancel that out, unless they simple felt that because it was less than the uncertainty of the data and so left it out.

      If these were really random variations then you would expect to see an equal number of "adjustments" in both directions.
      There might be a bit of a cherry picker fallacy here. Its not like Breitbart or Forbes are interested in the hundreds of completely neutral changes. Its only when something happens that contradicts a story they've run with for a long time like the whole 'Pause' story they were sold on. So we should expect Breitbart and Forbes mostly to talk about those changes that look very favorable to the Global Warming hypothesis... which might give the false impression that all the changes are like that.

      Personally I haven't been a part of all that data hunting so I wouldn't be able to tell if it was the case that most of the changes favor global warming, vs many just being neutral, or like that -0.3mm/year change, being indifferent.
      Last edited by Leonhard; 09-13-2017, 08:55 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        Three reasons, I think.

        1. There's more corruption / big money controlling the politicians and propaganda media outlets in the US than elsewhere in the world, so the oil industry has more scope to push its climate denial narrative in the US than elsewhere in the world.

        2. There's a tendency among US Conservatives to say "up" for the sake of it if democrats say "down". Al Gore was a Democratic presidential candidate. So his choice to subsequently try to bring attention to the global issue of climate change may have backfired somewhat in the US because it leads conservatives to think "well if Al Gore says it, it must be false".

        3. US Conservatives have fostered a climate of anti-intellectualism for decades. They have told themselves that the nasty scientists are lying about the age of the earth and evolution, that universities and colleges are liberal propaganda institutes, that the media is a bastion of liberalism, and Wikipedia is unreliable because anyone can edit it. They have essentially been convinced themselves that the only valid sources of information are the bible, their pastor, and ultra-right-wing and/or christian fundamentalist conservative talk-show hosts.
        Frankly, this says rather more about you than it does about US conservatives.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
          The idea that there was an actual pause in need of explanation was not the dominant hypothesis at the time. The main hypothesis was that it was just a statistical fluke, which is what it has turned out to be. There's no sign that the pause was anything other than an El Nino year in 2004, followed by a relative lul in the temperature rise due likely to our lack of instrumentation. If you see the reconstructed graphs the period where the 'pause' ostensible is has about the same width as the random fluctuations, so it was never rendered likely to have been an actual pause. Granted if it had kept up into 2025 then that would have cried out for an explanation.
          That just isn't true Leonard, even the IPCC agreed that there was a pause in global warming from 1998-2013
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            Three reasons, I think.

            1. There's more corruption / big money controlling the politicians and propaganda media outlets in the US than elsewhere in the world, so the oil industry has more scope to push its climate denial narrative in the US than elsewhere in the world.
            And the only evidence he has ever given for this bald assertion is an opinion poll in which perceived corruption was the question. How perception makes reality is anyone's guess, but this is Starlight's world and the rest of us should be blessed to be allowed in his presence.

            2. There's a tendency among US Conservatives to say "up" for the sake of it if democrats say "down". Al Gore was a Democratic presidential candidate. So his choice to subsequently try to bring attention to the global issue of climate change may have backfired somewhat in the US because it leads conservatives to think "well if Al Gore says it, it must be false".
            Al Gore hasn't been a player in US politics in nearly 20 years. Anyone that thinks many 'US Conservatives' pay much attention to him are seriously out of touch. The real issue is global warming advocates use it to push their own politics and pretend as though science supports their big government solutions and disagreeing with big government solutions is science. Want 'US Conservatives' to get on board? Stop pretending big government is the only solution.

            3. US Conservatives have fostered a climate of anti-intellectualism for decades. They have told themselves that the nasty scientists are lying about the age of the earth and evolution, that universities and colleges are liberal propaganda institutes, that the media is a bastion of liberalism, and Wikipedia is unreliable because anyone can edit it. They have essentially been convinced themselves that the only valid sources of information are the bible, their pastor, and ultra-right-wing and/or christian fundamentalist conservative talk-show hosts.
            It's interesting that Starlight flat ignores conservatives who don't reject science, but reject socialism as being the only solution. Yet again, why bother to understand your opponents when broad brushing them as science rejecting YECs is much easier? As its already been said, this post speaks more about Starlight than it does about his opponents.


            The rate of natural temperature change is negligible on the scale of a century. The rapid temperature changes we're seeing are ~100% human caused, so somebody talking about "preventing [human-caused] climate change" is functionally equivalent to talking about stopping climate change. I also think you are being disingenuously willfully blind to the implied presence of "[human-caused]" that typically is present as an unstated implication of such talk.
            Climate works over thousands of years and not over a few decades. Trying to claim human activity is totally responsible for current weather patterns is like observing 3 minutes of a movie and trying to extrapolate the entire plot.
            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              That just isn't true Leonard, even the IPCC agreed that there was a pause in global warming from 1998-2013
              Yep... of course that was before the data was tampered with to artificially cool the past and warm the present. Instead of changing the hypothesis to support the data, they changed the data to support the hypothesis. This is known as "consensus science".
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                It's OK, I know a substanceless response when I see one.
                So do I - it's one like yours, where you ignore specific criticisms in favour of vague gibes and links to articles you haven't read.
                The thing is, there aren't "old earth" facts, and "young earth" facts. There are simply facts.
                And the fact in this case is that there is no contact plane between the Redwall Limestone and the Tapeats Sandstone at the Grand Canyon. A fact that you have just ignored, and will continue to ignore.
                I just love how you "open-minded" types strike the pose of an indignant toddler when your ox is being gored.

                Of course you pulled that quote from here and pretended that's all they had to say about it,
                That is all they had to say about it. Neither the article referenced from there nor any of the other links you provided without reading even mention the Redwall Limestone.
                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                Mountain Man on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                Sparko: Even the deists like Jefferson believed in the Christian God, ...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                  Neither the article referenced from there nor any of the other links you provided without reading even mention the Redwall Limestone.
                  No, but they explain how the same phenomenon happened at other places in the world.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by me
                    And the fact in this case is that there is no contact plane between the Redwall Limestone and the Tapeats Sandstone at the Grand Canyon. A fact that you have just ignored, and will continue to ignore.
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    No, but they explain how the same phenomenon happened at other places in the world.
                    Fact ignored as predicted. All that ruckus about facts but the truth is you don't have the knowledge, experience or even energy to determine what is fact and what is not. You linked to some YEC claptrap, and now you're frantically trying to avoid admitting that your so-called 'referenced facts and theories' were nothing of the sort.
                    Last edited by Roy; 09-13-2017, 11:40 AM.
                    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                    Mountain Man on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                    Sparko: Even the deists like Jefferson believed in the Christian God, ...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                      You linked to some YEC claptrap, and now you're frantically trying to avoid admitting that your so-called 'referenced facts and theories' were nothing of the sort.
                      Sure, if that's how you want to interpret it.

                      But like I said, not everybody is going to agree with you.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        It's OK, I know a substanceless response when I see one.

                        The thing is, there aren't "old earth" facts, and "young earth" facts. There are simply facts. I've seen time and time again where old earth proponents will simply narrate their point of view and then point to one fact or another as if that settles the debate, except that young earth proponents have access to the exact same facts and are able to explain how, say, a worldwide flood followed by rapid runoff can account for many of the geological features we see in, say, the Grand Canyon.
                        Okay, time to once again point out that this is anything but a same evidence different interpretation issue.

                        I started a thread on this back in the pre-crash days but saved the information used in the OP (sorry about the length)...




                        Many Young Earth Creationists (YECs) often claim that the interpretation of evidence depends upon the outlook or world view. That we have the same evidence, but we arrive at different conclusions or interpretations concerning it based on our a priori commitment to a worldview or starting presuppositions. And that, in the end, all the evidence put forth in support of an ancient Earth and Universe could just as well interpreted in a YEC framework.

                        This is a defense against the apparent overwhelming scientific evidence that exists that seems to disprove the YEC positions and bolster those in which they oppose that is seen time and time again. For example, here is AnswersinGenesis’ (AiG) Ken Ham:

                        Creation: ‘where’s the proof’?
                        Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

                        The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions.


                        So, do the YECs have a case? Or are they merely engaging in the denial of contrary evidence to prevent disparity between what is believed and the implications of the evidence (i.e., Cognitive Dissonance).

                        To start it should be acknowledged that assumptions do affect how we view evidence. We all filter information and try to make sense of it. Background beliefs differ, and consequently, where bystanders are operating under different paradigms, it is completely conceivable that rational bystanders could find different meaning in scientific evidence from the same event.

                        But does this mean that the YECs are correct and that it’s all just a matter of worldview and preconceptions? No, and for several reasons.

                        First, it assumes that scientists, or anyone else, are completely incapable of looking beyond their prejudices and as the early history of geology demonstrates, this is not true.

                        Most of the first geologists were devout Christians (many belonging to the clergy) and took the concept of a young Earth shaped by a recent global flood pretty much for granted though a large percentage went out explicitly looking for evidence of this. To cut a long story short, they came away not only finding no evidence to support their beliefs but strong evidence that those beliefs were wrong and that the Earth was far older than they presupposed and the geologic strata wasn’t laid down by a worldwide deluge as they assumed. Like fair and neutral observers they ignored their prejudices and allowed the evidence to take them were it led – which is to an old Earth.

                        And this isn’t an isolated instance, for the history of science is filled with scientists accepting ideas contrary to their preconceptions. Some time ago the concept that stones fell from the sky was scoffed at; being explained as either having been from a volcano that ejected them up into the upper atmosphere or resulting from a tornado picking them up and flinging them. Today, even young children are aware of meteors and meteorites.

                        Another more recent example would be the acceptance of Continental Drift and later Plate Tectonics, though they’re now nearly universally accepted. The reasons these new theories have unseated the previous ones is because of the evidence presented. Evidence that anyone could check out for themselves. If it had just been a matter of re-interpreting the evidence then the old theories would still be in place.

                        A good scientist, regardless of his/her ideological background is trained to rely on the evidence (which exists regardless of whatever preconceptions he/she might have) and is supposed to seek good explanations using scientific methods. Now, as stated, everyone has to some extent prejudices that could potentially influence their research, but since their findings are available for others to check, and different people have different prejudices, anything that's been missed can be (and usually is) immediately pointed out. This scrutiny makes sure that the scientist strives to make his/her case strong enough to endure any inquiry, and the best way to do this is to root their case only on the evidence and not opinion.

                        If they fail for whatever reason (scientists are people and individual scientists can still cling to various prejudices just like anyone else), it will be quickly pointed out. This is because, while individual scientists may be dogmatically opposed to a particular theory or concept, science itself isn't. As I briefly mentioned above, different scientists having different preconceptions enable them to identify other's "blindspots."

                        So it seems that it is indeed possible for scientists to overlook their own preconceptions and go where the evidence leads them. And if they don’t, someone with a differing worldview usually will quickly point it out.

                        Second, the YEC assertion of ‘same evidence, different interpretation’ assumes that all scientific interpretations are of equal worth. This is not the case. Proper interpretations must fit into a coherent framework and be consilient with all the data.

                        But that is precisely what the underlying implication of the different interpretation contention is. No thought is more supported by the evidence since all ideas are created equal and therefore deserve equal respect – and equal time in the classroom.

                        But if this idea is true then this concept would have to be applied equally to all ideas. After all, there are all sorts of supposed "scientific controversies" and they’re all going to want equal time to present their theory and air this or that grievance.


                        The geocentrists who believe in a stationary and utterly immobile Earth will probably be the first to demand equal time. Of course you might say that that Foucault’s pendulum demonstrated that the Earth turns on its axis and thus moves way back in 1851. But that is just an “interpretation” of the data they’ll retort. They see it differently; that the pattern of Foucault’s pendulum is a result of orbiting stars pulling on the pendulum.

                        Under the belief that all-interpretations-are-equal philosophy the geocentric explanation is no less valid than the mainstream one and both should be presented equally. But to a rational person, it is fairly obvious that even the most ridiculous claims can be made to fit the evidence if you just interpret the evidence the “right” way. The thing is that real science requires that the conclusions reached are the most likely ones.

                        In the end, even the YECs should acknowledge that some interpretations are utter rubbish and nothing more than baseless speculation.

                        Third, the claim that it is merely a matter of seeing the evidence from a different worldview, assumes that the YECs really do examine the empirical evidence rather than just spout a stream of ad hoc scenarios that as likely as not contradicts the one just given to hand wave away some other difficulty.

                        Not that legitimate scientists aren’t faced with contradictions when formulating a theory, it’s just that you’re expected to make a rigorous attempt to resolve it. YECs show very little, if any, compulsion to do likewise. I once heard a lecture by a YEC where he described the Flood as being indescribably violent to explain the formation of the Grand Canyon and then only moments later portray the waters of the Flood being still and quiet in order to explain how the Green River formation varves were formed. He didn’t perceive of any contradiction with roaring waters being simultaneously still.

                        In any case, this gets back to the point that not all interpretations are equal. Providing a series of often contradictory ad hoc explanations just is not a good interpretation of the data. For the YEC accounts to ever be considered a better explanation that that which has so far been provided by legitimate science, it has to do more than attempt to explain how the evidence might work, it has to explain how it was most likely to work.

                        But this won’t ever happen as long as the YECs won’t deal with all the evidence and continue to provide explanations that are internally consistent. Until they do this they cannot honestly say that they’re coming to conclusions based on the evidence. It is trying to deny the evidence. As some wag once put it, the way YECs look at the evidence (and then ignore most of it) is like looking at a year calendar - and saying only December exists. You can’t cherry pick your evidence and ignore what you don’t take.

                        Another related issue is that some YECs have also been known to misrepresent, twist and distort what evidence they do bother to examine. By this I don’t mean that they merely confuse things and get them in what is my opinion wrong. I mean they alter and warp it in such a way that it is barely recognizable when they’re finished. The only issue is whether it is done intentionally or not.

                        One such method employed is the attraction YECs ostensibly have for quote-mining, or misquoting in an attempt to provide evidence in support of their views by misrepresenting the position of others so that they appear to say the opposite of what they really said.


                        A classic example of such an extracted quote is “There is no God” (Psalms14:1). While those words do occur in that order in Psalms 14:1 you will discover that the author wasn’t denying the existence but was instead referring to those who, in the author’s opinion, foolishly denied the existence of God. A far more precise quote would have been “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God,” which more accurately conveys the author’s meaning.

                        Sometimes it’s just a simple matter of taking a quote out of context like the example of above. But other times they cut and snip statements and then splice them together to get the desired statements.

                        For a couple of examples of YEC quote-mining one can look here (http://www.fsteiger.com/creationist-quotes.html). Pay particular example to the bottom one for an instance to what I was referring to. Ken Hovind cobbles together a quote out of lines from a book that were separated by at least 91 pages!

                        It is very difficult to believe that such butchery of the text as was displayed by Hovind could be done in any other way that was not a deliberate attempt to mislead people by severely distorting the evidence. And when you are doing such things as this you can hardly be claiming that it is simply a matter of having a different interpretation of the evidence.

                        And this is far from the only source showcasing creationist quote mines. Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quot...e/project.html) is one of the larger collections put together, many of which we see time and time again. In fact, quote mining scientists is such a popular tactic of creationists that many prominent biologists have taken to deliberately wording their lectures and publications in ways to make quote mining more difficult.

                        As you can see it wasn't without reason that the late Stephen Jay Gould condemned YECs for “their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents” in an article called “The Verdict on Creationism” published in the Skeptical Inquirer, in the 1980s.

                        But probably the ultimate evidence in support of my charge that YECs ignore evidence they don’t like are the statements of faith that organizations like Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and AiG require their employees (including writers) to adhere to that obliges them to ignore evidence that goes against their reading of various Bible verses, meaning that they only accept what they already assumed. Consider this part of AiG’s Statement of Faith: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”[1]

                        There are several other points to consider as well that don’t fit very well into the three categories above (without me taking them further off track than I did . I’ll cover them briefly…

                        …In the case of an old Earth and Universe, as well as the ToE, the "same evidence, different interpretation" complaint totally ignores the sheer mass of evidence that supports it. While many different interpretations of the evidence is possible when the number of data points is small, as they increase with the addition of more evidence, then the number of likely explanations becomes smaller and smaller.

                        …People who accept the scientific method as a means of tackling questions involving the physical world (as opposed to the spiritual one) don’t accept an old Earth and Universe or the ToE because of preconceptions. They accept them for the same reasons they accept the Theory of a Heliocentrism, the Germ Theory of Disease, the Theory of Limits (on which calculus is based), the Atomic Theory of Matter – it is by far the best explanation we have that explains the observed evidence. ALL of the observed evidence. The observation of evidence comes first, and theory is developed to explain the observations. Then predictions are made to test the accuracy of the theory.


                        …Often the "presuppositions" used by science are actually NOT presuppositions - they are rules of physics, chemistry, gravity, etc

                        In conclusion the different interpretation claim is completely false. It is a tactic that is used to make YEC unfalsifiable. It doesn't matter what legitimate scientists produce as way of evidence as long as some kind of explanation can be presented. It doesn't matter if the explanation is hopelessly ad hoc with no reference in the Bible or any evidence in reality.







                        1.I have posted about this particular issue bit in more detail and will continue with that in the next post

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • Dealing with the trustworthiness of the major YEC sources given their policies that oblige those that write for them to cherry pick data:
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          In science you're supposed to follow the evidence to where it leads not try to build a trail to a pre-determined conclusion. The problem with the latter method is that you end up cherry picking through the evidence discarding what you don't like.

                          Incidentally, that is precisely what those who write for the largest YEC organizations are required to do. Allow me to explain.

                          Every single person who writes, or does work for the most prominent, “prestigious” YEC groups like the AnswersinGenesis (AiG) are required to agree beforehand that no matter what they uncover it must not, cannot, in any way, demonstrate that evolution takes place or that the universe is more than a few thousand years old. No I’m not making this stuff up. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and Creation Ministries International (CMI) require the same thing[1].

                          These groups oblige all those who work for them to sign documents that compel them to absolutely ignore all evidence that goes against the organization’s particular reading of various Bible verses. IOW, they can only accept what they had already assumed and must ignore and reject everything that doesn't. Here is the statement of faith required by CMI (which is nearly identical to the Statement of Faith that AiG demand you sign). And here is the oath ICR forces their people to sign.[2]

                          When you are required to sign a statement of faith or oath like this that requires that you ignore all evidence that shows evolution taking place or that the Earth or universe is older than a few thousand years old, then you aren't doing science but only pretending to do so.

                          In science one should be prepared to, in the words of Thomas Henry Huxley, "Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."[3]

                          But if you set up a preconceived notion and then declare that "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts" it then you are merely doing an imitation of Carroll's Queen of Hearts when she declares in Alice in Wonderland "Sentence first! Verdict afterwards."

                          So in the end they're very selective about just what evidence they will examine and after they’re done cherry-picking they usually end up offering explanations that are mere ad hoc rationalizations that are wholly internally inconsistent and more often than not mutually contradictory.

                          There is nothing even remotely similar to this in conventional science. In fact, this is pure anti-science. Agreeing to ignore or hand-wave away contradictory evidence in advance isn’t even remotely scientific but is a perversion of science.







                          1. And their material filters its way down to the lesser/smaller YEC groups where it is often copied and repeated verbatim

                          2. Actually there are several points which I heartedly agree with but if you swear in advance to come to a certain conclusion regardless of what the evidence reveals that is your right to do so but don't try to pass off what you're doing as science.

                          3. This view has been expressed repeatedly by legitimate scientists. For instance:
                          • "I have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved, as soon as the facts are opposed to it." --Charles Darwin (who also wrote: "A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections - a mere heart of stone.")
                          • "If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties." --Francis Bacon in Book I of The Advancement of Learning 1605
                          • "I keep my theories on the tips of my fingers so that the merest breath of fact can blow them away." --Michael Faraday
                          • "The hallmark of science is not the question ‘Do I wish to believe this?’ but the question ‘What is the evidence?’ It is this demand for evidence, this habit of cultivated skepticism, that is most characteristic of the scientific way of thought." --Douglas Futuyma
                          • "A scientist should every morning eat one of his favorite theories for breakfast." --Konrad Lorenz
                          • "Any real systematist [or scientist in general] has to be ready to heave all that he or she believes in, consider it crap, and move on, in the face of new evidence." --Mark Norell (in his Unearthing the Dragon)


                          Recently after the discovery of a 14 myo fossil of a type of honey bee in North America Michael Engel of the University of Kansas and co-author of Evolution of the Insects excitedly said "I got to overturn some of my own stuff"
                          When I brought this up to Jorge he hand waved this requirement to exclude and ignore evidence that contradicted their presumptions by saying that the authors agreed with these presumptions so it doesn't matter.

                          My reply:
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          While I'm sure it is accurate to say that those who work for groups like AiG, ICR and CMI do agree with their positions that does not change the facts that these groups still require them to sign oaths and statements of faith to make sure that they outright dismiss and ignore anything and everything that might contradict their preconceptions before they write anything. They must not be allowed to confuse the rubes with an impartial, balanced examination of the facts. Only one side alone is allowed to be presented.

                          That what they then produce for publication is represented as science is laughable in the extreme. It is anything but science. It is a parody or mockery of actual science. In legitimate science you don't get to cherry pick only the data that you think might support your presumptions must must also examine the stuff that appears to contradict them.

                          And that is exactly what does happen. I already mentioned the example of the noted paleontologist and entomologist Michael Engel and how he reacted when shown that he had been wrong about honey bees weren't in North America millions of years ago but had (relatively) recently migrated here from Europe or Asia. He didn't throw a fit. He didn't ignore the evidence that refuted what he was sure was the correct view. Instead he was thrilled that he "got to overturn some of my own stuff."

                          And this is far from some isolated instance. Scientists reject cherished beliefs if and when enough evidence can be amassed against it.

                          As Carl Sagan noted back in 1987 in a speech:
                          In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day.[1]

                          Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" cites a couple examples of just such occurrences taking place, such as with the issue of continental drift and plate tectonics. He notes that
                          "The Old Guard" who had a lot of time and research invested in fixed continents tended to be skeptical the longest, and many held out until the evidence became overwhelming. Eventually, they all had to concede their cherished beliefs were wrong.

                          Prothero revealed how the famous geologist Marshall Kay, who had spent his entire life explaining the complexities of geology based on the assumption that continents did not move (even publishing a major book on the topic), ended up embracing plate tectonics when the evidence for it started to amass. Even though he was near retirement age Kay began redoing his life's work using the new concepts and his work ended up providing a good deal of the geological evidence used in support of the theory.

                          Everybody's favorite Richard Dawkins has repeatedly recounted one instance that he has witnessed:
                          I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artifact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said--with passion--"My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years." We clapped our hands red.

                          I can continue giving example after example of this including debates over whether humans were in the Americas prior to the Clovis culture; the megaflood in eastern Washington that resulted in the formation of the Scablands; how a champion of the idea that whales arose from mesonychids abruptly changed his mind and agreed they actually arose from artiodactyls (an idea he had adamantly opposed) when he discovered a bone that contradicted his presumptions.

                          And yes I can include examples specifically relating to evolution.

                          There have been numerous examples of what were initially considered to be controversial theories (as they accounted for observed biological changes that did not correspond to the expectations of the neo-Darwinian models derived from the New Synthesis -- which itself over-turned pure Darwinian thought and theory -- that was developed in the mid 1930s through the mid 40s) that have been accepted.
                          • Like when Conrad Waddington proposed developmental evolution (evo-devo) in 1942

                          • Like when Willi Hennig proposed phylogenetic systematics (cladistics) in 1950

                          • Like when Motoo Kimura proposed the neutral theory of molecular evolution (genetic drift) in 1968

                          • Like when Lynn Margulis proposed Endosymbiotic theory in 1970

                          • Like when Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium in 1973

                          • Like when Søren Løvtrup proposed Epigenetics in 1974

                          • Like when Carl Woese proposed horizontal gene transfer in 1977


                          What none of the scientists who initially opposed any of the above mentioned items ever did was automatically reject the evidence that showed that their cherished ideas had been mistaken. They didn't dismiss it because they had signed an oath demanding that they unconditionally dismiss any and everything that didn't support what they had already concluded. And they certainly didn't throw a hissy fit and threaten those who questioned them with going to hell for daring to disagree as YEC John Baumgardner did as he ran off during a discussion about the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project with Kirk Bertsche and several others after just a few exchanges here at Tweb a few years back.

                          ETA: Another example of what I'm talking about can be seen in the different replies that Bill Nye and YEC leader Ken Ham provided during their debate last year when asked if there is anything that could get them to change their mind. Nye responded that evidence could whereas Ham intoned that nothing could.






                          1. As Sagan notes it doesn't happen enough and I'll add that there will always be holdouts but in general science advances when new information demonstrates an old view does not reflect reality. If it didn't we would still think that the earth was immobile and the sun revolved around it or the elements consist of air, earth, fire and water.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • Yeah, I've seen those rationalizations before and don't find them particularly convincing (although the strawman fallacies in cartoon form were at least amusing, but probably not for the reasons you suppose). What it comes down to, I think, is that both sides simply don't trust the other to be fair, objective, and honest, which is unfortunate because that in and of itself can interfere with the scientific process.

                            Curiously, your taking YEC organizations to task for requiring a "faith statement" while ignoring that the peer review process at popular science journals is effectively the same thing exposes a curious blind spot.
                            Last edited by Mountain Man; 09-13-2017, 04:53 PM.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              The best way to solve a problem is not with fear, but with incentive to create something better and/or more profitable.
                              Where do you think those incentives are coming from? The 195 countries who signed the Paris agreement are all looking at what can be done in their own countries. For many of them, that has been to create financial incentives surrounding the development of new electricity technology.

                              If we can make electricity easier than having to dig up coal or oil, then the market will move to that technology.
                              Yes. Who do you think is pushing and funding research into such technologies? Mainly governments concerned about climate change.

                              Forcing the issue just ticks off everyone and puts people out of work. Invent better technology and the market will solve the problem naturally.
                              Inventing better solar panels will put precisely those same coal miners out of work as if the government had clamped down on coal. You're bizarrely treating technological development and the market as if they are 'natural', as opposed to things that the government actively pays for or manages.

                              You're also leaving out the issue of what if the better technology doesn't happen soon enough, isn't good enough, or doesn't fix things fast enough? Your whole attitude amounts to "well let's do nothing to address the problem right now, and let's just live with the negative effects of climate change continuing to accumulate in the present and over the next decade, and while we do that we can optimistically hope that technology that doesn't yet exist might be invented and thus in a few decades time that climate change might eventually plateau if we're lucky and stop getting worse." That's just a dumb approach - it relies on an uncertain future in order to refrain from taking any concrete steps in the present.

                              Furthermore it's important for governments and councils to incorporate climate change models into their future plans. To give an example, one of the effects that the earthquakes a handful of years ago had on my city was that the parts of it nearest the rivers & coast were lowered slightly and this made them flood-prone. A recent government report here has highlighted that this is going to be a huge problem for the city with regard to any amount of climate-change-caused sea-level rise as it will make the flooding in these areas substantially worse. Obviously that is important information for the council to have as it thinks about whether to try to move people out of those areas of the city or to build better flood protection systems. For countries like the Netherlands, Bangladesh, Kiribati and the Maldives that have large low-lying areas, they have a lot of planning to do with regard to any amount of sea level rise.

                              Photo taken by me a few years back. This is the local river, which is tidal this close to the ocean. Its height being above that of nearby houses during high tides or heavy rain = problem. If the ocean gets higher due to climate change = even more problem.

                              IMG_3581.JPG

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                Originally posted by Starlight
                                Three reasons, I think [as to why US Conservatives do climate denial to an extent not present in other countries].

                                1. There's more corruption / big money controlling the politicians and propaganda media outlets in the US than elsewhere in the world, so the oil industry has more scope to push its climate denial narrative in the US than elsewhere in the world.

                                2. There's a tendency among US Conservatives to say "up" for the sake of it if democrats say "down". Al Gore was a Democratic presidential candidate. So his choice to subsequently try to bring attention to the global issue of climate change may have backfired somewhat in the US because it leads conservatives to think "well if Al Gore says it, it must be false".

                                3. US Conservatives have fostered a climate of anti-intellectualism for decades. They have told themselves that the nasty scientists are lying about the age of the earth and evolution, that universities and colleges are liberal propaganda institutes, that the media is a bastion of liberalism, and Wikipedia is unreliable because anyone can edit it. They have essentially been convinced themselves that the only valid sources of information are the bible, their pastor, and ultra-right-wing and/or christian fundamentalist conservative talk-show hosts.
                                Frankly, this says rather more about you than it does about US conservatives.
                                It obviously says I am an astute and informed observer. But that isn't "more" than what I observed about US conservatives.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Gondwanaland, Today, 10:55 AM
                                2 responses
                                41 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post kccd
                                by kccd
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 10:04 AM
                                39 responses
                                189 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, Today, 06:57 AM
                                28 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 05:31 PM
                                2 responses
                                43 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by seer, 06-11-2021, 08:35 AM
                                21 responses
                                173 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X