c0nc0rdance vs. Thunderf00t

[dallen68]

In philosophy terms, this is the Law of Noncontradiction. And it's accepted by pretty much everyone. I really don't see any way anyone could make an argument for the opposite, since it's pretty much self-defeating by definition!

There are some things that apply in some conditions, but not others. I'm not sure whether that counts as contradiction, I'd call it exception in most cases (A is true, except when Y), in others I'd call it exclusion (B is false, except when Z)

Oh, and we DO verify statements. I'm not sure it's done in science, per se, but in many professions (that's pretty much how journalism and court works) and certainly in our personal lives we do. How many times have you heard claim C and hit google?

As far as "appeal to hypocrisy": I could kinda go both ways. On one hand the fact Shane doesn't do the "nice thing" he tells others to do, doesn't mean the "nice thing" shouldn't be done.  On the other side, in can be argued that Shane isn't in a position to be telling others what to do, if he isn't doing the "nice thing". So which way are we going on "appeal to hypocrisy"?  I'm asking so if I have an opportunity to call someone on it, I'm not opposing what I meant.

[MrBogosity]

There are some things that apply in some conditions, but not others. I'm not sure whether that counts as contradiction, I'd call it exception in most cases (A is true, except when Y), in others I'd call it exclusion (B is false, except when Z)

Being conditional doesn't make it contradictory.

As far as "appeal to hypocrisy": I could kinda go both ways. On one hand the fact Shane doesn't do the "nice thing" he tells others to do, doesn't mean the "nice thing" shouldn't be done.  On the other side, in can be argued that Shane isn't in a position to be telling others what to do, if he isn't doing the "nice thing". So which way are we going on "appeal to hypocrisy"?  I'm asking so if I have an opportunity to call someone on it, I'm not opposing what I meant.

What is this "nice thing" I'm supposedly telling others to do?

[dallen68]

I intended for your quote to appear here, which is why I clicked on "reply", but the "nice thing" could be anything: Like cleaning the lake, or recycling, or teaching children to play piano (or I guess anything). My question actually was does "appeal to hypocrisy" apply when Shane doesn't do the "nice thing" himself...OH, wait I just realized I said the same thing in different ways... my apology never mind.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

In philosophy terms, this is the Law of Noncontradiction. And it's accepted by pretty much everyone. I really don't see any way anyone could make an argument for the opposite, since it's pretty much self-defeating by definition!

As Wraith once said: Morality is actually very simple.  It's only made complicated by all the people trying to sneak in exceptions for themselves.

[Professor_Fennec]

Okay, so how many climate change scientists are doing the things you mentioned?

How many climate scientists have been caught making false data or have been found guilty of plagiarism?  Scientific misconduct is fare more relevant to the discussion, because if it turned out that a lot of research was based on bad research, it would undermine the confidence we have in climate science.  And no, those silly email leaks taken out of context don't count. 

When I say "look to the scientists" I'm talking about their data.  In other words, look at what the science says that they produced.  Have they built a consensus among their peers and have expert skeptics been convinced, based on the evidence?  YES, yes they have.  Personal lifestyle is completely irrelevant to climate science, just like it is irrelevant to all sciences.  All that matters is that they have been good scientists. 

What is always relevant is our own personal responsibility for the harm we cause others.  Do you or Lord T. Hawkeye honestly think that personal responsibility for our contribution to global warming is in any way negated because of the hypocrisy of a spokesperson?  Now, you might look at the hypocrisy and decide to be extra skeptical of the issue, which is reasonable, but what I'm hearing isn't skepticism, it is cynicism.  Cynicism does not a good scientist make.  It does, however, make a really good conspiracy theorist. 

Imagine somebody who said that Einstein was wrong about E=MC^2 because he worked on the Manhattan project, which ended up being used to kill Japanese civilians.  You'd justly call such a person a nutter.  Why is it any different when it comes to climate science?  It isn't different at all, and you guy's are making an exception because you think it suits your ideological positions.  You fear that climate science justifies government intervention in our lives. 

I disagree with this fear, but I also understand that we are all responsible for our acts of aggression against other people, and pollution, however slight, is an act of aggression that we are each responsible for.  To the best of our ability, we should commit to reducing these micro-aggressions that accumulate as environmental damage. 

[Professor_Fennec]

NOW we have something on the table to examine and not vague fog speak.

"The verification principle cannot be verified"

One question: How do you know?  You just stated that like it was a foregone conclusion we already agreed on when it's nothing of the sort.

OK, that's some weapons grade facepalm right there.  In order for something to be meaningful, according to the verification principle, it must be verifiable.  There is no way you can verify the verification principle.  In falsification terms, it isn't a testable statement.  If it isn't testable, then it isn't science. 

You've been called out on the whole business of "Nothing is certain" being itself a statement of certainty and now you're trying to employ some sophistry to flip the argument around.  Nice try but ain't gonna cut it.

So, what you are telling me is that you don't know the difference between an artifact of language and objective reality.  Concepts and ideas can be certain things, yes, but we cannot be certain of reality itself, a fact made even more poignant by the limitations of our five senses.  Rather, reality is best described in terms of probabilities, as modern physicists will tell you.

And no, UPB is NOT based on the verification principle so thanks for admitting you didn't actually watch the vid in question.
"Consistency is preferable to inconsistency with regards to principles and propositions because inconsistency being preferable is a contradiction."
"Any principle or proposition which is not consistent or cannot be consistently applied cannot be valid."

That is essentially the Verification Principle, stated a different way.

It's the same as the scientific method.
"The universe is consistent."
"Any theory that is not consist, both unto itself (logic) and unto reality (empericism), cannot be valid."

No, that's not the scientific method at all. If you get science lessons from Stefan, you would flunk an actual science class. 

1) Observations - Examine the world around you.  Ask questions about your observations.
2) Hypothesis - Create a falsifiable prediction based on observations and previous evidence.
3) Test your hypothesis.
4) Is the hypothesis confirmed or rejected?  If rejected, go back to step 2.  If confirmed, go to step 5.
5) Apply confirmed hypothesis to an existing theory or create a new theory.
6) Publish your findings in a peer review science journal.
7) Answer your critics and form new tests and experiments to defend and modify your position, based on criticism received (Go back to step 2).
 
This is basic 6th grade science. 

This is just more fog.  You're not defining your terms and you're making bald assertions.  "opens us up to confirmation bias and the cherry picking fallacy" why?  Because you say so?  That means nothing.

Calling something "fog" just because you aren't comprehending it is insulting.  Google is your friend.  Go look up confirmation bias and why it is a problem in modern science, even today, and why falsification is used to combat this psychological phenomena. 

Besides, aren't you thus saying that something CAN be objective, rational and predictable and yet still be false?  Example please.

Not at all. Falsification is where you create a falsifiable statement and develop an experiment to falsify that statement.  What is so hard about this that you don't get it?

Nor is the easter bunny yet nobody calls themselves agnostic with regards to that.  What's your point?  The whole criticism of agnostics is there is no logical reason to fence sit on the issue.  Until it is fact, it is fiction.  That's how it works.

Spoken like a true Logical Positivist.  No credible scientist thinks this way, and I defy you to fine even a single one with a PhD.  Stop taking science lessons from a scientifically illiterate history major. 

Easter bunnies are not falsifiable, so we can't have a scientific discussion about them.  We can only dismiss the concept as fantasy based on the unlikelihood of their existence.  But not everything is so seemingly black and white as this. 

Take Dark Matter for example.  We have indications that it might exist, but no direct evidence of it has ever been found.  In fact, an entirely different explanation yet to be conceptualized could actually turn out to be the correct answer.  Does that make dark matter a fantasy?  No, because dark matter is still being investigated; we have lots of hypotheses to test.

I know for a fact that The Amazing Spider-man is a fantasy because it has authors, artists and publishers that will tell you that it came from their imaginations.  We can reasonably say that The Amazing Spider-Man is a fantasy, because he is a work of fiction. 

I know for a fact that Thomas Jefferson existed because we have a grave site, an estate, as well as numerous references to him by his contemporaries, not to mention numerous writings in his ink.

What exists between these extremes of fact and fantasy?  The untested falsifiable hypotheses of science, of course.

[MrBogosity]

Imagine somebody who said that Einstein was wrong about E=MC^2 because he worked on the Manhattan project, which ended up being used to kill Japanese civilians.  You'd justly call such a person a nutter.  Why is it any different when it comes to climate science?  It isn't different at all, and you guy's are making an exception because you think it suits your ideological positions.  You fear that climate science justifies government intervention in our lives.

It IS different, because we're talking about the possible ramifications of climate change when you're just looking at the question of whether or not it exists. If you want to know how much someone believes what they say, look at what they DO. And if they're speaking at your conference talking about how climate change will kill lots of people if we don't do something now now now, but they took a private jet and a limo to get there, you're allowed to ask the question of how much they really believe it.

[Professor_Fennec]

It IS different, because we're talking about the possible ramifications of climate change when you're just looking at the question of whether or not it exists. If you want to know how much someone believes what they say, look at what they DO. And if they're speaking at your conference talking about how climate change will kill lots of people if we don't do something now now now, but they took a private jet and a limo to get there, you're allowed to ask the question of how much they really believe it.

I don't know of any credible scientists who say global warming and climate change will kill lots of people, but they do say that it will cost the global economy a lot of money over time due to the cost of modifying infrastructure, plus it will cause many business and residents in coastal areas to relocate.  Most of the really disastrous consequences aren't projected to occur until well after we are all dead.  Earth won't turn into Venus, but the people of the future will certainly not be to terribly fond of us because of how we generate our power and because of how much beef we consume.  It will take a very long time for the Earth's climate to stabilize and eventually cool back down. 

I certainly practice what I preach.  My car averages 32 mpg, my home is Energy Star compliant, my thermostat is programmable, my computer throttles memory and CPU clock speeds, and I've switched to a combination of LED and micro-mini CFL bulbs to light up my home.  I've even redone my porch lights so that they are now fully shielded, so they contribute far less to urban glow.  This has added up to, not just energy savings, but significant monetary savings as well.  For my 1,500 square foot home, my electric bill was under $70 per month last winter, and this summer my bills have been below $120.  Keep in mind that I drop the temperature down to 68F at night to help me sleep, and my porch lights stay on automatically from exactly sunset to sunrise.  In the future, I plan on adding solar powered attic fans to boost my home's cooling efficiency even more!  One of these days, when I can finally afford it, I'll get solar panels and wind turbines put on my roof, so I can cut my power consumption from the grid to nothing, or even sell some of it back to power my neighbor's homes.   

Not only do I practice what I preach, but I can see that the long term savings in energy have made for more affordable living with cooler temperatures indoors.  One of the things that hold me back are the state regulations in Oklahoma concerning the buying and selling of power.  If you are a power producer, you must sell your power back at wholesale, which is a fraction of what retail power costs.  Secondly, what little profit you do get from selling back power is now taxed in Oklahoma to protect the established energy industry from competition.  Other states have been far more favorable to consumers wanting to be more energy independent, even when not factoring in subsidies. 

[MrBogosity]

I don't know of any credible scientists who say global warming and climate change will kill lots of people, but they do say that it will cost the global economy a lot of money over time due to the cost of modifying infrastructure, plus it will cause many business and residents in coastal areas to relocate.

But that's ALWAYS been the case! And if anything, relocation and putting down new infrastructure is much cheaper in a modern economy than it was 100 years ago. We don't need central management or mitigation to deal with those issues.

the people of the future will certainly not be to terribly fond of us because of how we generate our power and because of how much beef we consume.  It will take a very long time for the Earth's climate to stabilize and eventually cool back down.

If you knew the climate science, you'd know that the question isn't how hot it will get (which isn't unprecedented), but how quickly it's happening. So it doesn't have to "cool back down"; if it stays at the higher equilibrium things might actually be BETTER because of how much extra land will be opened up for growing foliage.

In the future, I plan on adding solar powered attic fans to boost my home's cooling efficiency even more!  One of these days, when I can finally afford it, I'll get solar panels and wind turbines put on my roof, so I can cut my power consumption from the grid to nothing, or even sell some of it back to power my neighbor's homes.

As long as you don't live in a state which does their best to restrict it (which it sounds like you do), because it competes with power companies. Of course, those tend to be the states with the most sunlight...

Me, where I live something like 95% of the power I use is generated by nuclear power; most of the rest hydroelectric. So I'm pretty carbon-neutral. Not that I wouldn't love solar panels if they saved me money...

But this goes back to what I was talking about: if you're seriously worried about climate change, you should be advocating for more nuclear power, which is safe and carbon-free and something we can do NOW. If someone's against nuclear power, then again I'm forced to wonder how much they really believe their claims about the bad effects of global warming.

[Travis Retriever]

But that's ALWAYS been the case! And if anything, relocation and putting down new infrastructure is much cheaper in a modern economy than it was 100 years ago. We don't need central management or mitigation to deal with those issues.

If you knew the climate science, you'd know that the question isn't how hot it will get (which isn't unprecedented), but how quickly it's happening. So it doesn't have to "cool back down"; if it stays at the higher equilibrium things might actually be BETTER because of how much extra land will be opened up for growing foliage.

As long as you don't live in a state which does their best to restrict it (which it sounds like you do), because it competes with power companies. Of course, those tend to be the states with the most sunlight...

Me, where I live something like 95% of the power I use is generated by nuclear power; most of the rest hydroelectric. So I'm pretty carbon-neutral. Not that I wouldn't love solar panels if they saved me money...

But this goes back to what I was talking about: if you're seriously worried about climate change, you should be advocating for more nuclear power, which is safe and carbon-free and something we can do NOW. If someone's against nuclear power, then again I'm forced to wonder how much they really believe their claims about the bad effects of global warming.

^QFT--especially the last bit on Nuclear Power; like *I* said.

[Professor_Fennec]

I'm actually OK with nuclear power, and would like to see more research being done with thorium reactors, which are significantly safe and potentially much less expensive to operate, because they only generate alpha particles, which require minimum shielding to block.  The country was going to go into this direction, but the US government wanted lots of uranium so they could turn all the nuclear waste into bombs, so uranium reactor research got massive subsidies, while thorium reactors were forgotten about.

The reason why I advocate solar and wind is, not just for the sake of carbon emotion reduction, but independence from somebody else producing my power and charging me money for it.  Why pay somebody else for energy that I can get for free?  All we need are less expensive solar panels and better mediums of storage.  Liquid metal batteries and carbon nano-tube super capacitors/batteries look like promising technologies, but they are not ready for prime time. 

Since government is smothering the growth of these technologies, companies can't make high enough profits for the R&D they need to make these technologies cheep enough so everybody can afford them.

[MrBogosity]

I'm actually OK with nuclear power, and would like to see more research being done with thorium reactors, which are significantly safe and potentially much less expensive to operate, because they only generate alpha particles, which require minimum shielding to block.

I like the idea of thorium power, too, but if it turns out to be unfeasible, would you be OK with more uranium plants?

The reason why I advocate solar and wind is, not just for the sake of carbon emotion reduction, but independence from somebody else producing my power and charging me money for it.

This is good, but unfortunately we're just not there yet. Solar and wind are the future. Nuclear is NOW.