Why Donald Trump disappointed me

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Eduk
Posts: 2085
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Why Donald Trump disappointed me

Post by Eduk » May 22nd, 2017, 9:07 am

If you make enough statements then law of averages suggests you will at least get some of them right.
Unknown means unknown.

Eaglerising
Posts: 231
Joined: April 2nd, 2016, 8:12 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jiddu Krishnamurti
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: Why Donald Trump disappointed me

Post by Eaglerising » May 22nd, 2017, 9:39 am

Democracy is a good thing. Mixing democracy and capitalism results in the demise of both.

Supine
Posts: 1016
Joined: November 27th, 2012, 2:11 am

Re: Why Donald Trump disappointed me

Post by Supine » May 22nd, 2017, 9:47 am

Eduk wrote:
I live in the United States. And its is like living in Nazi Germany.
You mean you live in a homogenised society...
Well, I'm a brown skinned mulatto (perhaps not relevant, but many people assume every Trump supporter is white and from coal country) and I use to think higher of very racially diverse countries.

Living in the US many years (whole life thus far) and looking at Brazil and Colombia and Venezuela I have come to a much different view and conclusion. That is from looking at more homogeneous nations in Northern Europe or Scandinavian countries. The long history of the "other" in the United States and Brazil is why the two countries have the problems they do. That's why in both countries the rich areas tend to be mostly or completely white. But in the less well off areas they to be brown and black.

There are some upsides to "diversity" in cities like London. But they can have their downsides too. At least it is so in the USA.

I think more homogenous societies place greater value in social nets and community.

If an area of Italy has certain cultural traits, cultural things, and some uniformity that goes back centuries then I see nothing wrong with it. Per se. And so, I don't conclude wrong doing if they want to keep those things even if they allow huge waves of foreigners to move in. That goes for the celebration of Christmas or for the Palio.
...where expressing a difference of opinion could see you, and your family, imprisoned or worse?
It has not reached that point in the USA but there are signs of scientific, philosophical, and moral intolerance in the United States. There is currently a "right way" to think in the USA and enforced by use of coercion by political and special interest groups.

There is even dogma and the term "heretic" has been used in the climate change science. No one has gotten burned at the stake or imprisoned (yet) but your career can be adversely affected or even come to and end "expressing a difference in opinion."
(For the record I am pro-climate change in Wisconsin towards the warmer. I would be anti-climate change in Southeastern Wisconsin if things would just be getting colder and colder. I pretty much dislike the cold.)

Eduk
Posts: 2085
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Why Donald Trump disappointed me

Post by Eduk » May 22nd, 2017, 10:17 am

I am sure you can think of some opinions that you disagree with? To take your Nazi example, it could be opined that all Jews are plotting against everyone and aren't human and should be killed. That's an opinion. If you have that opinion then your employer would be quite right to question it and the public as a whole would be quite right to question it. You may think well what does this have to do with my job teaching school children but other people may have a different opinion (rightly so).
So to answer your question, there are more right ways to think and more wrong ways to think. The problems arise when the more wrong ways to think become the norm and the problem is intensified when you don't just face a few unlikes, or even when you lose a job, but rather when you get killed.
If you disagree with the scientific consensus then (sometimes unfairly) you should expect an uphill battle. The great joy of science however is that you can use evidence to prove theories. Maybe it doesn't happen over night but eventually one person (who is correct) can change the scientific consensus. If you are wrong however that is a different story.
Unknown means unknown.

Eaglerising
Posts: 231
Joined: April 2nd, 2016, 8:12 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jiddu Krishnamurti
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: Why Donald Trump disappointed me

Post by Eaglerising » May 22nd, 2017, 10:34 am

Judging President Trump by criticizing, agreeing, or praising him only causes conflict and doesn't produce understanding. What needs to be seen is that our elected officials are a reflection of its citizens. In other words, we need to take a serious and objective look are ourselves. Judging another, regardless of who they are focuses our attention away from what needs to be examined – ourselves. If we don't like what we see we change, and the more we change, the more society changes.

Supine
Posts: 1016
Joined: November 27th, 2012, 2:11 am

Re: Why Donald Trump disappointed me

Post by Supine » May 22nd, 2017, 12:04 pm

Eduk wrote:I am sure you can think of some opinions that you disagree with? To take your Nazi example, it could be opined that all Jews are plotting against everyone and aren't human and should be killed. That's an opinion. If you have that opinion then your employer would be quite right to question it and the public as a whole would be quite right to question it. You may think well what does this have to do with my job teaching school children but other people may have a different opinion (rightly so).
I never stated I am pro-freedom of speech. In the US freedom of speech in legal terms basically means for most things (there are exceptions like falsely screaming "fire" in crowded movie theater) you say or express (e.g., burning of American flag, blaspheming Jesus or Our Holy Lady) you are constitutionally protected from arrest by law enforcement and the state.

Freedom of speech does not in this strict legal term equal freedom from consequences (e.g., boycotts, public shunning, getting terminated from a job etc.). Most liberals will happily agree with that whence those they disagree with in speech are getting persecuted in some fashion. But they cry foul when any of them are persecuted for exercising their freedom of speech in conjunction with their true beliefs. Then they insinuate "freedom of speech = freedom from consequence, and total and absolute tolerance.

Currently, the Catholic Church has an environment that surpasses by far, freedom of speech in the USA. The United States is far more intolerant of heresy from its own sacred story lines. And that's all they are are story lines. And such great tolerance for heresy in modern Catholicism has been its down fall. No company in the USA would tolerate a fraction of the opposing of "its values" by employees that the Catholic Church does. Or Brazil is a case where racial hate speech is outlawed (whereas it is protected in the USA under freedom of speech) as well as belonging to any racial hate group (you have to belong in secret in Brazil or you risk being arrested) and consequently Brazil has one of the lowest racial hate crimes in the world.
So to answer your question, there are more right ways to think and more wrong ways to think. The problems arise when the more wrong ways to think become the norm and the problem is intensified when you don't just face a few unlikes, or even when you lose a job, but rather when you get killed.
The only one's competent to judge and determine what is the "right way" to think are the collective, decision making process, of a world wide body of Christian Bishops in an ecumenical meeting, with the collective judgments of its Patriarchs from the East and West (in the West that would be the Pope in Rome).

Unlikes or shunning is emotionally hard on person too. Most people anyways. Just ask many homosexuals. And losing your job is no minor thing. Particularly in Christianity wherein "a livable wage" is one component of Social Justice.

If you disagree with the scientific consensus then (sometimes unfairly) you should expect an uphill battle. The great joy of science however is that you can use evidence to prove theories.
Not if it is a dogma. Some would call climate science (which uses real methods of scientific inquiry, at least many times, although its religious adherent may contrive data or other things to promote their wishes and religious beliefs that humans as a species are akin to polar bears and that Wisconsin needs to remain cold most months of the years, adversely effecting crop productions, that evolution [change] in the physical non-biological world of the universe or planet earth is bad.) a non-science and modern day religion with its dependence on dogmas and use of the word heretic. So, they would put the word science in quotation ("") marks to imply it is not a real science. I won't do that, however, as I believe science is frequently as closely related to theology as you can get. Perhaps minus physics and the applied sciences in the various engineering and technological fields. They seem to be apolitical and areligious.

So, you can only change scientific consensus by becoming a metaphorical Protestant heretic. And that change will take decades potentially.
The PseudoScience of CO2 Based Climate
Published on May 11, 2013

The 1973 Nobel Prize co-winner in physics Dr. Ivar Giaever discusses and exposes the "pseudoscience" of global warming (now marketed as "climate change")


That Nobel Prize winning physicist points out, or claims, pseudoscience involves research in which researchers only look for *evidence* that *supports their hypothesis.*

Which is what the Corbett Report video below was getting at when it shows climate change science articles arguing a case of dry places getting wetter evidences the climate change proposition is correct, likewise when dry places get drier.

As the physicist pointed out (if I remember correctly) when a hurricane hits a town you blame its cause on climate change (in a bad sense of climate change--as I cede climates in various locations of the world have, can, and will over time change). But if that town goes periods without being hit by a hurricane you don't blame the cause of no hurricane hitting said town on climate change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huKY5DzrcLI&t=38s
Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience
Published on Dec 8, 2015

SHOW NOTES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=17205

Karl Popper famously said, “A theory that explains everything explains nothing.” So what do you make of the theory that catastrophic manmade CO2-driven “climate change” can account for harsher winters and lighter winters, more snow and less snow, droughts and floods, more hurricanes and less hurricanes, more rain and less rain, more malaria and less malaria, saltier seas and less salty seas, Antarctica ice melting and Antarctic ice gaining and dozens of other contradictions? Popper gave a name to “theories” like this: pseudoscience.


So, you have had anti-Trump people marching in the streets in support of science, and mostly over reasons of climate change. They think the US Government and military metaphorically pointing a wheel gun, a revolver, with 1 bullet in one of the chambers, aimed at nuclear power Russia, and then every so often squeezing the trigger and letting the hammer fall is less a threat of climate change through nuclear war, through nuclear winter than their "sky is falling" melodramatics from climate change scientists de facto proclaiming themselves the modern day Noah's. But even if their climate change proposition is completely true, the bad climate change is not going to end life on earth 3 days from now, 30 years from now, nor 300 years from now, nor 3,000 years from now. But if Russia and the USA launch mass nuclear attacks on each other 3 days from most life on earth with go extent in what... a few years maybe? If not most life on earth than at least a great many species of life on earth will go extinct.

So, when I fear climate change it is because I fear the effects of mass scale nuclear war, which is one major reason why I think Trump was right with common sense to build better relations with Russia. But he has not entirely followed through with that. Not by appearance anyways.
Maybe it doesn't happen over night but eventually one person (who is correct) can change the scientific consensus. If you are wrong however that is a different story.
Then how does the scientific consensus ever become "wrong" in the first place? The eugenics movement a case example of most scientists agreeing with a thing deemed "the right way to think," and then decades later most scientists deeming it "the wrong way to think."

Eduk
Posts: 2085
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Why Donald Trump disappointed me

Post by Eduk » May 22nd, 2017, 12:23 pm

I'm sorry I don't have the time. Could you make one unreasonable claim at a time please? This looks copied and pasted, I don't have a list of answers in order to do likewise.

I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make? Could you pick your best argument and we can start there, then branch out naturally. Sorry but there is only so much time in the world.
Unknown means unknown.

Supine
Posts: 1016
Joined: November 27th, 2012, 2:11 am

Re: Why Donald Trump disappointed me

Post by Supine » May 22nd, 2017, 3:33 pm

Eduk wrote:I'm sorry I don't have the time. Could you make one unreasonable claim at a time please? This looks copied and pasted, I don't have a list of answers in order to do likewise.

I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make? Could you pick your best argument and we can start there, then branch out naturally. Sorry but there is only so much time in the world.
The posts were long, in my opinion too long for internet forum replies, I will give you that. It would be better I type replies in the writing style of journalist in which case the sentence are short to degree and paragraphs especially are very short.

Philosophical papers tend to have a much different writing style. Even my longest papers in the few philosophy classes I took would be criticized for being too short (writing out arguments). Interesting, because my experience is those same types of papers in length would receive a grade of A in the English courses I took.

Anyways, some of my replies, especially given I don't do 2nd and 3rd revisions before submitting as I would on college papers, can be written cumbersome. So, I will give you that also.

I also made some sarcastic remarks tucked in my points about climate change. Like the remark about the view of humans being akin to polar bears. I was being sarcastic because humans are essentially a tropical species. Being born naked, walking naked, living naked or near naked ought be our scientific guiding light as to what climates are most suitable to human survival and ability to thrive and propagate. So, polar bears do not need winter coats and heated houses to live freezing climate of snow and ice. But humans do. So, like the nearly naked Amerindian tribes of the Amazon rain forest, humans can survive naked in that climate. Ironically, the author(s) of the book of Genesis, in the story of Adam and Eve, understood this far better than modern day climate change protestors that were out protesting Trump. So, Adam and Eve were naked in a garden (originally). Not some snow covered desert (deserts are marked by low precipitation, so, the Antarctica is actually a desert).



In light of protests over Trump and accusations that he is waging a war on science (particularly against the prevailing proposition about human induced climate change), I guess you could start by addressing the flaws you apparently see in the Corbett Report's report on the contradictions in climate change articles and his use of drawing upon philosopher of science Karl Popper. You can address the flaws you see in that former Nobel Prize winning physicist who claims or calls climate change science a religion and pseudoscience.

So, you can start with this portion of my former post, below.

(The bold under the videos and the links are copied and pasted. I thought it would be evident but I probably should have either put them in quote marks and cited them to the video and links, or I should maybe have put them in the quote boxes.)
Supine wrote:
The PseudoScience of CO2 Based Climate
Published on May 11, 2013

The 1973 Nobel Prize co-winner in physics Dr. Ivar Giaever discusses and exposes the "pseudoscience" of global warming (now marketed as "climate change")


That Nobel Prize winning physicist points out, or claims, pseudoscience involves research in which researchers only look for *evidence* that *supports their hypothesis.*

Which is what the Corbett Report video below was getting at when it shows climate change science articles arguing a case of dry places getting wetter evidences the climate change proposition is correct, likewise when dry places get drier.

As the physicist pointed out (if I remember correctly) when a hurricane hits a town you blame its cause on climate change (in a bad sense of climate change--as I cede climates in various locations of the world have, can, and will over time change). But if that town goes periods without being hit by a hurricane you don't blame the cause of no hurricane hitting said town on climate change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huKY5DzrcLI&t=38s
Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience
Published on Dec 8, 2015

SHOW NOTES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=17205

Karl Popper famously said, “A theory that explains everything explains nothing.” So what do you make of the theory that catastrophic manmade CO2-driven “climate change” can account for harsher winters and lighter winters, more snow and less snow, droughts and floods, more hurricanes and less hurricanes, more rain and less rain, more malaria and less malaria, saltier seas and less salty seas, Antarctica ice melting and Antarctic ice gaining and dozens of other contradictions? Popper gave a name to “theories” like this: pseudoscience.


So, you have had anti-Trump people marching in the streets in support of science, and mostly over reasons of climate change. They think the US Government and military metaphorically pointing a wheel gun, a revolver, with 1 bullet in one of the chambers, aimed at nuclear power Russia, and then every so often squeezing the trigger and letting the hammer fall is less a threat of climate change through nuclear war, through nuclear winter than their "sky is falling" melodramatics from climate change scientists de facto proclaiming themselves the modern day Noah's. But even if their climate change proposition is completely true, the bad climate change is not going to end life on earth 3 days from now, 30 years from now, nor 300 years from now, nor 3,000 years from now. But if Russia and the USA launch mass nuclear attacks on each other 3 days from most life on earth with go extent in what... a few years maybe? If not most life on earth than at least a great many species of life on earth will go extinct.

So, when I fear climate change it is because I fear the effects of mass scale nuclear war, which is one major reason why I think Trump was right with common sense to build better relations with Russia. But he has not entirely followed through with that. Not by appearance anyways.
You don't have to watch the videos, but they are some sources one can look at, at least in terms of where I get some of my info. So, some clickable sources are provide that require little to no reading.

Likewise, a video source, providing the televised news reporting I saw of people marching in support of science and against Trump.
-- Updated May 22nd, 2017, 2:00 pm to add the following --

As an FYI: the gentleman that created the Corbett Report explains a bit about himself in video below. Apparently, although an English major in college he originally started off his first semester majoring in the physical science of physics. He claims to have had an appreciation for the hard sciences. He apparently has an appreciation for philosophers of science.

If it true a hoax article was approved for publishing in a peer-reviewed scientific journal explain how and concluding with the penis being a social construct that causes global warming (or did he say climate change?), well this would be too funny. :lol:

I guess anti-Trump protestors can next ridicule Trump in the future if he does not claim that penises are social constructs and not anatomical realities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yecefLsE44U&t=8s
"The Weaponization of 'Science'"

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why Donald Trump disappointed me

Post by Spectrum » May 22nd, 2017, 9:46 pm

Grotto19 wrote:“Trump is on a learning curve” Yeah that’s was my biggest point. The job requires training beforehand of which Trump had none of.
To be a good politicians one need a set of relevant skills. Trump is definitely not ignorant of politics. He is not so familiar the nuances and formalities of politics [which may be an advantage]. This gap can be easily brushed up in time.
In addition the public is already then [pre-election period] fed up with the existing establishment and 'political correctness'. Thus there's where Trump as the potential is relevant.
What is critical in this case is his high Strategic Management & Planning skills plus his very high energy and drive for success which cannot be learned easily especially if the basic drive is not inherent in that person.
The political nuances, forms and formalities can be learned up in quick time. Since, Trump has already made refinements at the edges to what he had proposed during his campaign.
“Expecting Trump to be superman on day one…”
Give me a break are you serious. I would be thrilled if we could get through a week without him humiliating my nation. My highest aspirations for this clown is we don’t start a nuclear war. This is what you get when you put your crazy drunk uncle in charge of everything because he thinks he knows how to run a country. Spooler alert it is a really bad idea and lots of people will get hurt.
Obviously I am serious. I don't think Trump is a madman like some crazy dictators. Given the system, he don't have absolute power to do what he wants. I agree many of Trump sayings, doings and approaches are uncomfortable but that is only superficial.
But I will ask. If my predictions of him being an asshat turn out to be true, will you then admit holy crap I really don’t know anything about politics?
Because I can honestly say if he turns out to be great I will not only admit that I will suspend my right to vote. If I can be that wrong I shouldn’t vote. What I wish is that when he does fail gloriously that Trump voters will stop voting for the same reason. Stop voting and also stop talking about politics. Because if he is what I think and claim they only injure us all with their vote. If it turns out I am the one so misguided then I will willing surrender my vote for life. In short the misinformed would do us the highest service by not voting, if it’s me fine I won’t vote, but if it is them then they should not vote.
Nope, I am not ignorant about politics.
If Trump failed terribly I admit I was wrong with his degree of egoism, narcissism, EQ, psychopathy and other potentially negative psychological traits.

At present, for me, he has already been a success on the Islamic terrorist front. His winning as President has disinfected the White House of evil Islamic influence and put a pause [in some degree] to the boldness of SOME Muslims [fundamentalists] to push their agenda in the US.
Note his recent call for the extermination of terrorism by Muslims extremists. I believe Trump avoidance of the term 'Radical Islam' is merely superficial against the $$$s of business from the Saudis.
However I disagree that the US should divert the attention to Iran as the problem. The problem is Islam [in part] the ideology [like communism, Nazism, fascism] all over the World and not just only Iran & gang.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Eduk
Posts: 2085
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Why Donald Trump disappointed me

Post by Eduk » May 23rd, 2017, 4:21 am

You can address the flaws you see in that former Nobel Prize winning physicist who claims or calls climate change science a religion and pseudoscience.
So in response for me asking to go one point at a time and to keep it a bit shorter you make a massive post with tons of points. I mean it's your prerogative, but I wasn't joking when I said I didn't have the time.
Why don't you try to answer your own question above? What I think is clearly irrelevant. Why don't you tell me how you know if the scientific consensus is right or not, or if individuals agreeing or disagreeing with the consensus are right or not. And tell me how sure you are of your conclusion, and how you can be so sure?
Unknown means unknown.

Supine
Posts: 1016
Joined: November 27th, 2012, 2:11 am

Re: Why Donald Trump disappointed me

Post by Supine » May 23rd, 2017, 11:29 am

Eduk wrote:
You can address the flaws you see in that former Nobel Prize winning physicist who claims or calls climate change science a religion and pseudoscience.
So in response for me asking to go one point at a time and to keep it a bit shorter you make a massive post with tons of points. I mean it's your prerogative, but I wasn't joking when I said I didn't have the time.
Seven paragraphs below the first quote box, composed in the short paragraph style of journalists (newspapers), is not "massive."

There was no "massive" paragraphs following the subsequent quotation boxes.

Why don't you try to answer your own question above?
Whether or not there was a flaw I saw none. So, I asked you, given you denounce Trump as "a crazy uncle" (presumably in part for not having blind faith in the dominate narrative of climate change science), then what flaws did you see or hear in the lecture of that former Nobel Prize winning physicist?

Listen, I am not trying to brow beat over this issue of science (highly politicized), although in your replies I think you are trying to do that with me. But the history of the scientific eugenics movement should serve as a lesson in blindly following the socio-moral "truths" of all those claiming to be motivated only by science. Maybe they are. But science in practice is wrong usually. Wrong before it gets it right. And when you mix politics (usually liberal) with science, in which science is used, demanded, to confirm and justify a political bias and politically motivated story as was the case in the eugenics movement, then the scientific process is even more likely to result in conclusions of error.

To be fair the eugenics movement was logical if in fact it had turned out to be true that all traits among individual humans could be explained by pure genetic or biological determinism. But even if it was logical it still could and can be accused of having been unethical. Given epigenetics is now used to explain the many varying traits among individual humans the eugenics movement looks even more unethical today. But those that opposed the eugenics movement even in intellectual arguments were denounced in similar terms to the way people today denounce so-called "climate change deniers" like Trump: as "crazy uncles" and "not progressive."

There is that old maxim: if we do not learn from history we are bound to repeat it.

What I think is clearly irrelevant.
Then why do you vote and why do you call Trump "a crazy uncle"?
Why don't you tell me how you know if the scientific consensus is right or not, or if individuals agreeing or disagreeing with the consensus are right or not. And tell me how sure you are of your conclusion, and how you can be so sure?
I'm not a scientist or a theologian. The Bishops of the Catholic Church are officially the teachers of the Church and educated in theology. They produce what we might call a "theological consensus." Now, it could be all of mankind is prone to biases and being tainted with corruption except for those in certain professions: police officers, priests, politicians, and scientists.

That could be.

But I'm persuaded that is not the case. So, I view scientists akin to Chicago police officers or the LAPD, institutions renowned for mostly everyone falling in line with scripted stories (lies) to protect their jobs and even advance their careers, lest their professional colleagues shun them.

Why am I persuaded? One reason, in terms of climate change science in particular, is the use of ad hoc hypotheses. Which is supposed to be a no no in both philosophy and science. But apparently climate change science makes frequent use of this. It becomes un-falsifiable. And I was taught in school that all scientific hypotheses have to be falsifiable.

Basically what that 5 minute or so video by the Corbett Report (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huKY5DzrcLI&t=24s) is showing with articles on climate change is that the basic proposition is not falsifiable. Why? Because everything proves it and nothing can disprove it.

Theology is basically religious philosophy. It would be like Catholic Bishops in consensus frequently using ad hoc hypotheses to condemn and frighten people away from the behavioral trait of homosexuality. Using contradictory arguments like: "Homosexuality is bad because it leads to an increase in sexual abuse of young boys." And "Homosexuality is bad because it leads to a decrease in sexual abuse of young boys."

Eduk
Posts: 2085
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Why Donald Trump disappointed me

Post by Eduk » May 23rd, 2017, 12:07 pm

I didn't call Trump a crazy uncle?

The issue with one physicist telling the majority of climatologists that they are all wrong is complex.

1. He is a physicist, people (even Nobel prize winners) suffer from the Dunning-kruger effect.
2. You are appealing to one authority and ignoring a much larger authority (how do you decide between authorities?).
3. How do you (not a climate scientist) know if what a physicist says about climatology is correct or reasonable or not? Answer is you don't. Nor do I (I am not a climate scientist either). I am just going with the consensus because it's the most reasonable thing for me (a non expert) to do.
3. How many papers has Ivar published in reputable peer reviewed magazines?
4. How many Nobel prizes has Ivar won in the field of climatology. I guarantee that if Ivar published research that proved his hypothesis then he would win another Nobel prize?
5. Science is not a club or an organisation. You (yes you) could train to become a climate scientist, learn the methodologies and then publish papers.
6. It is in the interests of scientists to prove other scientists wrong. But they have to prove it using empirical evidence. There is a great deal of competition in the science community. Relativity saw opposition in the early days but thanks to the scientific method which corrects against bias (the only known methodology which does) he was shown to be empirically correct.
7. The scientific method has brought such results that I don't understand how you can argue with it? You are writing a post on a machine which has technology you couldn't being to understand (me neither) and take it for granted. Show me a computer made with methods other than the scientific method? Even your ball point pen which you take for granted (me too) is a wonder of modern science.
8. I could go on, but as I explained my opinion is irrelevant. I didn't mean to me by the way, my opinion matter to me, I mean my opinion is irrelevant to you. You will not change your mind because there is no mechanism for changing your mind. There is no standard by which you can agree in advance to adhere to. No rules of logic you promise not to break. And no apology or recognition of any mistake.
9. If the scientific consensus changed tomorrow and papers were published which proved it wasn't a real effect (or at least not contributed to by man) then I would change my mind tomorrow. I would also expect a few trials into certain people's behaviour. That would change my mind. Bearing in mind I'm no expert, what reasonable thing can I do but trust (at least to some extent) the scientific consensus. I'm not saying I know 100% they are right. I'm saying I trust they are right about 80%, they could be wrong.
10. I think by the time I'm dying I will know factually whether the ocean is rising (at least I hope I live into old age). Now that will be a fact that I could measure myself. If it doesn't happen we will know the scientists are at least partially wrong. They may revise estimates, possible in my life time I wouldn't know for sure, my child or grand child (I hope) will probably have a better idea. There is only so long you can draw out dates before you lose credibility.
11. Of course the average person in the street will still say ok so you were right about the whole flooding and displacing and carnage thing but you were wrong about it being man made. This is a fantasy that will last for ever I fear, or at least until a couple of generations have died out.
12. So now let's say we invent technology to reverse C02 emissions (which is never a bad thing by the way). Again wait a couple of hundred years and the temp starts to fall. That would be pretty conclusive I think.
13. So at a very rough estimate I say in about 300 years time we will know pretty factually whether man made climate change is real or not.
14. Of course you will be dead (and me) but I guarantee that even at that point you would not change your mind. Because reality has nothing to do with your beliefs. You would make all sorts of special pleading.
Unknown means unknown.

Supine
Posts: 1016
Joined: November 27th, 2012, 2:11 am

Re: Why Donald Trump disappointed me

Post by Supine » May 23rd, 2017, 1:31 pm

Eduk wrote:I didn't call Trump a crazy uncle?

The issue with one physicist telling the majority of climatologists that they are all wrong is complex.

1. He is a physicist, people (even Nobel prize winners) suffer from the Dunning-kruger effect.
2. You are appealing to one authority and ignoring a much larger authority (how do you decide between authorities?).
3. How do you (not a climate scientist) know if what a physicist says about climatology is correct or reasonable or not? Answer is you don't. Nor do I (I am not a climate scientist either). I am just going with the consensus because it's the most reasonable thing for me (a non expert) to do.
3. How many papers has Ivar published in reputable peer reviewed magazines?
4. How many Nobel prizes has Ivar won in the field of climatology. I guarantee that if Ivar published research that proved his hypothesis then he would win another Nobel prize?
5. Science is not a club or an organisation. You (yes you) could train to become a climate scientist, learn the methodologies and then publish papers.
6. It is in the interests of scientists to prove other scientists wrong. But they have to prove it using empirical evidence. There is a great deal of competition in the science community. Relativity saw opposition in the early days but thanks to the scientific method which corrects against bias (the only known methodology which does) he was shown to be empirically correct.
7. The scientific method has brought such results that I don't understand how you can argue with it? You are writing a post on a machine which has technology you couldn't being to understand (me neither) and take it for granted. Show me a computer made with methods other than the scientific method? Even your ball point pen which you take for granted (me too) is a wonder of modern science.
8. I could go on, but as I explained my opinion is irrelevant. I didn't mean to me by the way, my opinion matter to me, I mean my opinion is irrelevant to you. You will not change your mind because there is no mechanism for changing your mind. There is no standard by which you can agree in advance to adhere to. No rules of logic you promise not to break. And no apology or recognition of any mistake.
9. If the scientific consensus changed tomorrow and papers were published which proved it wasn't a real effect (or at least not contributed to by man) then I would change my mind tomorrow. I would also expect a few trials into certain people's behaviour. That would change my mind. Bearing in mind I'm no expert, what reasonable thing can I do but trust (at least to some extent) the scientific consensus. I'm not saying I know 100% they are right. I'm saying I trust they are right about 80%, they could be wrong.
10. I think by the time I'm dying I will know factually whether the ocean is rising (at least I hope I live into old age). Now that will be a fact that I could measure myself. If it doesn't happen we will know the scientists are at least partially wrong. They may revise estimates, possible in my life time I wouldn't know for sure, my child or grand child (I hope) will probably have a better idea. There is only so long you can draw out dates before you lose credibility.
11. Of course the average person in the street will still say ok so you were right about the whole flooding and displacing and carnage thing but you were wrong about it being man made. This is a fantasy that will last for ever I fear, or at least until a couple of generations have died out.
12. So now let's say we invent technology to reverse C02 emissions (which is never a bad thing by the way). Again wait a couple of hundred years and the temp starts to fall. That would be pretty conclusive I think.
13. So at a very rough estimate I say in about 300 years time we will know pretty factually whether man made climate change is real or not.
14. Of course you will be dead (and me) but I guarantee that even at that point you would not change your mind. Because reality has nothing to do with your beliefs. You would make all sorts of special pleading.
Eduk, I was not merely "appealing to authority" (let alone one man, one authority), as in "X must be true because Y person said so."

Really, what I was and have been saying follows more or less closer to this form: "I have found A and B propositions unpersuasive from X group, and I have found C and D points of criticisms from group Y more compelling, more substantial, more rational."

I kept pointing out the physicist's Nobel Prize award simply to indicate ahead of time that he is no dummy, and has some real academic and scientific accomplishments under his belt. Eh, I never know how anyone can accomplish obtaining a bachelor's degree in physics let alone a Ph.D.

I have much respect for physics and philosophy. Yet, I hate doing both, or attempting both, in any level acceptable at academic standards. Frankly, from my own anecdotal experience in college, the smartest students I met in college were not in my biology classes/labs but in my philosophy classes. Interestingly enough, and to my surprise, many of them were well read in the major branches of the natural sciences.

As for your point number 7, I don't dismiss the scientific method (although, it has its limits for what it can answer), but that does not mean science can't become tainted with political and social beliefs and agendas. I went to a 4th tier university majoring in biology, a university that accepted or accepts something like 75% or 80% of its applicants. So, one requiring a much lower bar for admittance than a Yale or Harvard or MIT. Yet, in the science courses I took the bar was still raised high enough that all undergrads were taught all, every, any scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable. The same requirement for any and all scientific theories.

In my philosophy of science course I took I was taught that the use of ad hoc hypotheses in any field claiming to be a science, really provides rational evidence that "real science" is lacking in that field.

In terms of computers this is an issue of applied science (e.g., engineering, practicing medicine). Applied sciences draw upon the natural sciences to solve problems in our world or to make our lives more comfortable and convenient in some way.

Eduk
Posts: 2085
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Why Donald Trump disappointed me

Post by Eduk » May 23rd, 2017, 1:54 pm

And do you believe the consensus of experts in the field of climatology believe that man made global warming is falsifiable or not?
I suggest you write into a reputable body of your choice and ask them how the theory of man made climate change is falsifiable. That would both answer your question on whether they believe it to be falsifiable and maybe you would learn something to.

I understand you believe claim A is more persuasive than claim B, more rational. Of course you do, who thinks they are irrational?

I would argue however that not being a climate scientist you are not fit to judge claims and counter claims. Neither am I. Hence I go with the consensus. Physicists tell me that a cat may be alive and dead, I believe in the results (I can't begin to understand the theory or counter theories). Like I said I don't know they are right but I trust the results.

Of course scientists are biased, just like everyone else. Do you trust a system which has been proven to correct for bias or do you trust system which have been proven to not correct for bias?
Unknown means unknown.

Supine
Posts: 1016
Joined: November 27th, 2012, 2:11 am

Re: Why Donald Trump disappointed me

Post by Supine » May 23rd, 2017, 4:30 pm

Eduk wrote:And do you believe the consensus of experts in the field of climatology believe that man made global warming is falsifiable or not?
Human contribution to any average rise in the earth's atmospheric temperature is not really the issue to me. Again, I want the earth to warm. I've stated this a number of times already. I live in Wisconsin and I'm all for human contribution to the climate warming of Southeastern Wisconsin (I live in Milwaukee). I would be fine with a one month winter in Wisconsin.

To what extent humans contribute to climate change is another issue. Bearing in mind climate and weather are not one and the same. I've been to a number states within mainland USA. Florida being one and California being another among a number of other states I've been to within the Union. To my knowledge the climate in Florida, before Europeans ever arrived, had always been different than the climate found in the Southeastern Wisconsin region. California has a climate or climates different than either Wisconsin or Florida. You can in one day go skiing down snowy mountains in California then that same day drive a far enough distance South in California and go surfing shirtless in the ocean under the blazing sun. But these climates existed before Europeans arrived here.

During the 19th century Milwaukee was a much smaller in population and urban geography, it was still heavily forested and lots of farmland. You would never know today that parts of the paved and residential East Side of Milwaukee was once farmland. The city was mainly swamp and had to be drained (kind of like the building of New Orleans in the South) and to this day the moist soil effects the monetary costs of building tall building or skyscrapers. One skyscraper downtown I know has pumps in the basement that pumps out water from the soil underneath its foundation. This is one reason Milwaukee does not have many skyscrapers.

So, when did humans make Wisconsin cold in December and Florida hot in July? Or... if they did to what extent? The answer is that Wisconsin was cold in December before the Industrial Revolution and before white people ever step foot on its terrain. Likewise, Florida was humid and hot before white people and the Industrial Revolution came to the conquered and newly formed USA. California has for a very long time had a dry, not humid, heat.

But the physiological system of humans are designed through the evolutionary process for warmer climates the Amazon rain forest. If I recall correctly the Amazon is also the most biologically productive region on planet earth. Freezing cold regions like the Antarctica will be less biologically productive, produce less forms, species of life all the way down to the different species single cell bacteria, than even Wisconsin which freezes for a portion of the year them melts the ice away and heats up with heavy humidity.

What I'm saying climate change scientists make unfalsifiable is their underlying hypothesis that global warming will be purely catastrophic for humans and for all life on earth. The actual pre-human history of the earth evidences this as pure nonsense. My understand is alligators are pretty pre-historic. We don't have them in Wisconsin and they don't seem to thrive in Northern Canada so far as I know. Yet these creatures--I wish would go extinct--seem to survive quite well in blazing hot, humid climates. Most of the earth's history never has polar icebergs. As cold as it is now on earth is a rare thing for planet earth. We are living currently in a mini-ice age. And again, I am pro-warm the earth up. I hope humans are causing global warming.


I suggest you write into a reputable body of your choice and ask them how the theory of man made climate change is falsifiable. That would both answer your question on whether they believe it to be falsifiable and maybe you would learn something to.
I've already taken an environmental science course in college. I'm sure that answered a lot more of my question than me making an inquiry to men and women in climate change science as corrupted as Chicago cops that support whatever lies (no matter how stupid the story) their professional colleagues come up with.
I understand you believe claim A is more persuasive than claim B, more rational. Of course you do, who thinks they are irrational?

I would argue however that not being a climate scientist you are not fit to judge claims and counter claims. Neither am I. Hence I go with the consensus. Physicists tell me that a cat may be alive and dead, I believe in the results (I can't begin to understand the theory or counter theories). Like I said I don't know they are right but I trust the results.

Of course scientists are biased, just like everyone else. Do you trust a system which has been proven to correct for bias or do you trust system which have been proven to not correct for bias?
@ Blue highlight: I was told the same thing about the once upon a time consensus in science that homosexuality was genetically determined. I didn't believe that politically, socially motivated claim either. My own views tended more towards what today has become known as (and replaced genetic determinism) epigenetics. The prefix "epi" meaning "above" or "beyond." And even with that, with complex sexual behavior among humans, my view is epigenetic influences on genes post birth and not pre-birth.

Anyways, the climate change science gets even more irrational than the genetic determinism of years ago.

Post Reply