[yt]WkjnU67kUkA[/yt]
So Mr. c0nc0rdance's beings his new video attacking Cult of Dusty for his open use of drugs as "promoting illegal behavior" to children, even though his actions would more accurately be interpreted as a persecuted minority, disparagingly referred to as "drug abusers", acting out in the spirit of passive resistance. In other words, Cult of Dusty was reflecting the drug culture of Colorado as apposed to just making a glorious spectacle of himself. On a personal note, I would say this is very reflective of c0nc0rdance's own bias as a statist prude, who is open to all cultures, save for those he does not like. Seriously, his channel should have "British fucking nanny" written all over it.
Then he moves on to Challenge Thunderf00t's attack on feminism, an attack that I think Thunderf00t has carefully worded to focus only on the rise of extreme feminism. C0ncordance seems to be lumping Thunderf00t with MRA stereotypes, which I think betrays c0nc0rdanc's overt diplomacy. C0nc0rdance then moves on to make the oddest comparison between men and women having no meaningful difference in physical ability when they loaf around on the couch, vs. when they train for sporting events, thus the phrase "throwing like a girl" is wrong. This logic just left me baffled. Its like saying "If I drained the blood of ten men and ten women, their ability to perform physically challenging events would be the same, thus men and women are equal." Did anybody else spot c0nc0rdance moving the goal post with his couch potato analogy?
Growing up, I got into scuffles and fights between both boys and girls, and I can safely say that when it comes to throwing balls and punching faces, girls were less physically capable. Pretty much every boy grows up learning this. Women generally don't like to fight nor compete physically, because they aren't motivated like men are via testosterone. Testosterone is an antagonist to oxycontin, a hormone associated with in-group bonding and intimate love. Men make a lot of oxytocin, too, but it gets counterbalanced by the antagonistic effects of testosterone.
The effects of testosterone include motivations to take more risks, to seek out adventure and to be less empathetic towards the pain of others. This makes boys play more roughly than girls, and over time this effect helps them develop their hand-eye coordination, and the physical activity + the anabolic effects of testosterone give them bigger muscles, too.
In the end, Social Justice Warriors like c0nc0rdance are upset because making accurate generalizations of about particular demographics should not be spoken because it could discourage the exceptions to the generalizations being made from succeeding in an academic or athletic way. All his study proves is that you shouldn't ask a person's race or biological sex until after they fill out a job application, perform an interview or take a test, not before. More over, his study ignores cultural aspects of urban culture and among women where academic achievement and athleticism are actively discouraged respectively.
So, what happens next? Will c0nc0rdance and Thunderf00t finally have the battle royal we've all been waiting for, or will the unity of the Magic Sandwitch Show finally be broken, especially when Aron Ra has announced himself as an ardent feminist?
The bit about testosterone reminds me of a bit from GirlWritesWhat where the folks on the show point out that said hormone gets an undeserved bad rap:
[yt]vVgFOf41vew[/yt]
There are also studies that show traits associated with high levels of testosterone, in utero, are associated with winning it bigger at the stock market, too. If your ring finger is longer than your index finger, an indicator of high in utero testosterone exposure, you are more likely to get rich playing the stock market game. The reason is because your likelihood to take risks is much greater then those who got less testosterone exposure.
http://www.dana.org/Publications/Brainwork/Details.aspx?id=43777
What's even more interesting is that your finger ratios may also relate to how you respond to testosterone. For some, it can actually make you more cooperative after injection.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/naturally-selected/201205/what-do-your-fingers-tell-about-your-hormones-personality-and-sexuali
The digit ratio stuff is kinda odd for me. On one hand, if you go by the length of my fingers the way it is shown here: http://www.psychotherapybrownbag.com/.a/6a010537101528970b0120a5ec9566970c-pi My fingers are equal in length. But if you go by the length of the fingers at the knuckle to the tip, it's a ratio closer to about 0.90. *Shrugs*
And yeah, the stuff about more testosterone making a lot of males calm wouldn't surprise me. As I know that being obese (I'm working on reversing that, damnit. >.>; ) tends to cut testosterone levels by as much as 50% (!). Stupid increased aromatization. >.<* And increases cortisol and insulin levels...yeah... On top of fat tissue producing lots of estrogen in males...good times. Good times.
As for the "testosterone causes violence" nonsense. How do they explain females being more likely to abuse their children? I mean I know that's not what the current narrative says, but it is true. Most child abuse is from the mother. And the women are more likely to use weapons and attack infants and young children.
Further compounding this is the fact that, in healthy (read: lean, active, non drug abusing) males, testosterone and estrogen levels rise and fall in synch. When one rises/falls, so does the other.
Also, just read your first post entirely...Did AronRa seriously announce that? O.o
Anyways, yeah, all the talk of hormones and stuff reminds me of this: http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/biosignature-reviewed-hormones-key-weight-loss/ Especially the latter half starting at the subtitle/section "The Other Way Around". Nothing like a good debunking of broscience/momscience to make the day feel good. X3
QuoteThe digit ratio stuff is kinda odd for me. On one hand, if you go by the length of my fingers the way it is shown here: http://www.psychotherapybrownbag.com/.a/6a010537101528970b0120a5ec9566970c-pi My fingers are equal in length. But if you go by the length of the fingers at the knuckle to the tip, it's a ratio closer to about 0.90. *Shrugs*
Mine's actually hard to tell. If you look at my hand, there is a significant difference in length, but the knuckles aren't even either, so maybe not. How this would help with gambling (or stock market, or race car driving... ??? )
mine matches fine, but obviously I'm but one sample point. :shrug:
As the article points out, measuring your fingers can be tricky. This is why it was done in the studies based on body scans, where finger length could unambiguous be measured.
If you want to do this at home, I would suggest taking measurements of your fingers from the first joint where your fingers end and your palms begin, to the tip of your fingers. It would be helpful to have somebody else assist you. Once you have your finger lengths recorded, see how they compare.
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on July 22, 2014, 04:24:19 AM
As the article points out, measuring your fingers can be tricky. This is why it was done in the studies based on body scans, where finger length could unambiguous be measured.
If you want to do this at home, I would suggest taking measurements of your fingers from the first joint where your fingers end and your palms begin, to the tip of your fingers. It would be helpful to have somebody else assist you. Once you have your finger lengths recorded, see how they compare.
I tried measuring it from tip to where palm begins...again like, I said, as it showed in the figure I posted. In which case they were about equal length. But it was inconsistent with the bone length which goes from the knuckle to the tip. Personally, I don't get why they didn't use the latter, as that would make more sense to me. ??? :shrug: Questionable practices aside....Yeah, makes sense, as I'm bisexual, rather than straight.
You think all of this is bad, PZ Myers wrote a blog post about the video: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/07/21/so-close/
The comments to that post are just as bad, if not worst:
QuoteWhy the fuck should we be willing to "engage" with people who want to deny us rights and call us slurs? What's to discuss? They're wrong, just like creationists are wrong. There is nothing to discuss. What they are telling us is that we can all get along so long as some of us keep to our place and do not question our superiors. Fuck that noise. If I wanted to make nice with bigots who will only accept me if I am silent and pliant, I'll join a fundamentalist church.
Free Thought Blogs is a fundamentalist church. It really is a place for free thought all the time, except when it's not. Dissent against the FTB website patriarch, PZ Meyers, will not be tolerated. Just ask Thunderf00t.
Why can't people like PZ just make their case and explain their point of view in plain English, so that we can properly criticize it, instead of him resorting to inflammatory rhetoric with a basis no more sophisticated then "you're wrong because it's obvious, duh".
I'm actually quite surprised that PZ hasn't been named a Biggest Bogon Emitter, yet.
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on July 23, 2014, 02:24:48 AM
I'm actually quite surprised that PZ hasn't been named a Biggest Bogon Emitter, yet.
Because you have to stand out to be BBE. Sadly, what PZ does is not at all atypical.
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on July 23, 2014, 02:24:48 AM
Free Thought Blogs is a fundamentalist church. It really is a place for free thought all the time, except when it's not. Dissent against the FTB website patriarch, PZ Meyers, will not be tolerated. Just ask Thunderf00t.
Why can't people like PZ just make their case and explain their point of view in plain English, so that we can properly criticize it, instead of him resorting to inflammatory rhetoric with a basis no more sophisticated then "you're wrong because it's obvious, duh".
I'm actually quite surprised that PZ hasn't been named a Biggest Bogon Emitter, yet.
Because PZ is completely incapable of any form of rational discourse. Anyone who, like PZ, considers himself to be infallible is incapable of rational discourse. (The conclusion that PZ thinks he is infallible seems to be an inevitable conclusion from his definition of "rational," as one of the requirements is "agrees with me".)
Quote from: evensgrey on July 23, 2014, 10:51:50 AM
Because PZ is completely incapable of any form of rational discourse. Anyone who, like PZ, considers himself to be infallible is incapable of rational discourse. (The conclusion that PZ thinks he is infallible seems to be an inevitable conclusion from his definition of "rational," as one of the requirements is "agrees with me".)
Ironically enough, it's the same failing (well, one of the MANY failings) that Ayn Rand suffered from.
Quote from: MrBogosity on July 23, 2014, 11:19:26 AM
Ironically enough, it's the same failing (well, one of the MANY failings) that Ayn Rand suffered from.
Ayn Rand did remarkably well under the circumstances (and having escaped the Bolsheviks by the skin of your teeth is nearly as bad as anything people lived through got in the 20th century).
I really have no idea why Stefan Molyneux will just gush about her and her writing. He doesn't do that about anyone else in any of his stuff that I've seen, and this is the guy who took Christopher Hitchens to task for his admiration of psychopath Che Guevara. Of course, he
also has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what fiction is, what it does, and how it works.
From what I understand, she wrote just like any other Russian novelist wrote, except she was writing in English she mostly learned from movies. The result is her novels read like really
bad movies. I waded through Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead back in my early teens, and there's no way I could do that again.
Quote from: evensgrey on July 23, 2014, 11:39:54 AM
Ayn Rand did remarkably well under the circumstances (and having escaped the Bolsheviks by the skin of your teeth is nearly as bad as anything people lived through got in the 20th century).
I really have no idea why Stefan Molyneux will just gush about her and her writing. He doesn't do that about anyone else in any of his stuff that I've seen, and this is the guy who took Christopher Hitchens to task for his admiration of psychopath Che Guevara. Of course, he also has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what fiction is, what it does, and how it works.
From what I understand, she wrote just like any other Russian novelist wrote, except she was writing in English she mostly learned from movies. The result is her novels read like really bad movies. I waded through Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead back in my early teens, and there's no way I could do that again.
I listened to the audiobook.
Quote from: evensgrey on July 23, 2014, 11:39:54 AM
From what I understand, she wrote just like any other Russian novelist wrote, except she was writing in English she mostly learned from movies. The result is her novels read like really bad movies. I waded through Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead back in my early teens, and there's no way I could do that again.
You did better than me. I only made it through 3 chapters of Fountainhead and 7 of Atlas.
Quote from: MrBogosity on July 23, 2014, 03:32:51 PM
You did better than me. I only made it through 3 chapters of Fountainhead and 7 of Atlas.
About the same for me.
Quote from: evensgrey on July 23, 2014, 11:39:54 AM
I really have no idea why Stefan Molyneux will just gush about her and her writing. He doesn't do that about anyone else in any of his stuff that I've seen, and this is the guy who took Christopher Hitchens to task for his admiration of psychopath Che Guevara. Of course, he also has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what fiction is, what it does, and how it works.
Because so much of Stefan Molyneux's identity is tied into Ayn Rand's philosophy, it seems reasonable that he would gush more over her writings than anybody else's.
I actually have a lot of problems with Stefan Molyneux, mostly because his arguments and techniques are based on rhetoric and strategies, and not so much on reason and evidence. His franchise isn't about truth, so much as it has become about himself. As much as he criticizes people for being sophists, he is himself a sophist, too, and much of his information about psychology is about 90 years out of date. It also doesn't help that he's a climate change denyer and a logical positivist.
Don't get me wrong, Stefan is great when it comes to theater and history. These are his specialties, but like all specialists, he has a tendency to greatly overestimate his expertise in fields he is not an expert in. That's where a lot of his problems come from, and it is really difficult for experts to explain to him his factual errors. He doesn't want to listen, because his show is all about him, not about having a rational discussion to seek out truth as he so often claims.
so what is a logical positivist again?
Logical Positivism is based on verification. Essentially, it means that a statement is only meaningful unless it can be proven true. This is a self destructing idea, because you can't prove that only statements proven true are meaningful. Also, it is really hard to prove anything true in any absolute sense. This philosophy of science comes from the Vienna Circle, which dates back about 90 years or so.
Logical Positivism was replaced by falsification. Rather then try to verify everything, we attempt to falsify statements instead. This is how contemporary science works, it is also why science only deals with falsifiable statements. Statements that cannot be falsified are considered metaphysical, not scientific, and cannot be regarded as any basis for truth. Metaphysics is about conceptualizing the possible. Science is about rejecting what we know is false.
"a statement is only meaningful unless it can be proven true," errr...what? Does that mean I have to go about making false statements to say meaningful things?
Quote from: dallen68 on July 25, 2014, 10:11:11 AM
"a statement is only meaningful unless it can be proven true," errr...what? Does that mean I have to go about making false statements to say meaningful things?
No, in order to say something meaningful according to Logical Positivists, your statements must be already proven true.
Under falsification, a statement is scientifically meaningful if it can be tested to be proven false.
A logical positivist view of God would be to say that because we have no evidence for God, God is a meaningless word. Thus, it can be said that God does not exist in the absolute sense.
Under falsification, the question of God's existence is not scientifically meaningful because you can't falsify the existence of God. Though the statement "God exists" is not testable, it is still meaningful. Thus, you can't truly say in any absolute sense that God does not exist. However, you can use probability theory to say that the existence of God is extremely unlikely. Given that our universe is fundamentally probabilistic, it makes more sense to view the universe in terms of probabilities, not absolutes.
This is why you will often hear Richard Dawkins talk about God as an extremely improbable being, or how evolution is "climbing mount improbable".
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on July 25, 2014, 02:35:39 PM
No, in order to say something meaningful according to Logical Positivists, your statements must be already proven true.
Under falsification, a statement is scientifically meaningful if it can be tested to be proven false.
A logical positivist view of God would be to say that because we have no evidence for God, God is a meaningless word. Thus, it can be said that God does not exist in the absolute sense.
Under falsification, the question of God's existence is not scientifically meaningful because you can't falsify the existence of God. Though the statement "God exists" is not testable, it is still meaningful. Thus, you can't truly say in any absolute sense that God does not exist. However, you can use probability theory to say that the existence of God is extremely unlikely. Given that our universe is fundamentally probabilistic, it makes more sense to view the universe in terms of probabilities, not absolutes.
This is why you will often hear Richard Dawkins talk about God as an extremely improbable being, or how evolution is "climbing mount improbable".
You are close but not quite right and need to be more accurate in your wording. Before I explain, however, I'd like to point out that logical positivism is a huge collection of ideas with a few underlying tenants in common, resting on verification as the J in JTB=K. For a real extensive, but still high level overview of it, I would recommend (rather, my colleague, with more knowledge in their specific arguments, recommended that I recommend) the "Vienna Circle" entry in the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
First, you have to know what meaningful means. It basically a measure of function or utility in a system. Something that is cognitively meaningful means that it is sentence that conveys some sort of description of a subject (a proposition) that could be true or false; a statement. This is different from things that are scientifically meaningful, which is a statement that explains some phenomenon; a hypothesis. Basically, scientifically meaningful ⊂ cognitively meaningful ⊂ linguistically meaningful.
In LP, in order for something to be cognitively meaningful, it must be something that it is POSSIBLE to verify empirically or necessarily true (like logical statements, e.g. ~(A^~A)). Therefore, sentences like "All ravens are black" and "Things either exist or they don't" are cognitively meaningful and "Eat your dinner!" is not (this also depends on your definition of POSSIBLE, which is one of many problems in LP theory as it tended to change on what they wanted done). There are many other problems with LP as well, so it fell to the wayside; but needed a replacement, which Popper and others provided.
Under the falsification, for something to be scientifically meaningful, it must be POSSIBLE to generate an empirical counterexample. Therefore, sentences like "all ravens are black" are scientific because you could come up with a real counter-example but "things either exist or they don't" and "Eat your dinner!" are not. However, there are problems with falsification as well but most scientists don't concern themselves with them because it tends to only happen on edge cases.
Statements about God, to an LP, are not cognitively meaningful because they is not possible to verify empirically nor are they necessarily true. One of the side effects of LP is the rise in theological noncognitivism. As for falsification, because it is not possible to come up with an empirical counterexample, statements about god are not scientifically meaningful, but it doesn't say anything about whether they are cognitively meaningful. Most people who are careful enough will admit that you cannot say anything about god with certainty (for complicated reasons I won't get in to now dealing with the supernatural); hence, Dawkins' hedging.
This really only scratched the surface but Plato.stanford.edu is the place to go for more. I cannot recommend it highly enough. Also, feel free to ask if you'd like clarification.
Thank you for your more expansive explanation, I'm sure you gave everybody a lot to think about.
Actually, the statement "Eat your dinner" is a command, not a statement of actuality, so it wouldn't fit here.
Again, I feel I have to point out that only the Bayesians have it right here.
It seems to me that the positivists focus primarily on the Prior Probability (which, if anything, is the LEAST significant component since a sufficient string of LRs will cause people who start with wildly different priors to converge on the same posterior), while modern science (the frequentist approach) focuses primarily on the numerator of the LR. And it's pretty much assumed that if that number is sufficiently low (compared to what?) then the statement is falsified.
I call the numerator of the LR the "verification factor" and the denominator the "falsification factor." In Bayesian logic, a statement cannot be definitively falsified any more than it can be definitively confirmed. The verification and falsification factors show the relative strength of H1 and H0. Falsification is absolutely necessary to test a claim, but it doesn't have some exalted position over verification. The question is, how strongly does the evidence validate the hypothesis compared to how strongly it falsifies it. You cannot simply say that a low verification factor is falsification, because the falsification factor may be even lower!
The bottom line is, a hypothesis where p(H)=.00001 is precisely as likely to be confirmed as one where p(H)=.99999 is to be falsified. Pretty much by definition.
Quote from: dallen68 on July 26, 2014, 05:27:30 AM
Actually, the statement "Eat your dinner" is a command, not a statement of actuality, so it wouldn't fit here.
You are right. I meant to use the word "sentence" to illustrated the different sets each belongs to. They are all sentences because they are all linguistically meaningful. I have edited the post to reflect that.
I'd also like to apologize. I came down on someone for incorrect wording and then do the same myself. Guess that is why they always tell you to have someone else proofread your work.
As for Bayesian vs positivists, they are actually working on two different problems. Bayesian theory is used in the field of corroboration or confirmation (depending on your school of thought). That is, it lends more power to hypotheses (or statements and hypotheses, again depending on your school of thought). You have to already have a statement or hypothesis before you can use Bayes Theorem. Positivists are concerned with identifying cognitively meaningful statements to begin with. In fact, it is possible to be both at once, with enough intellectual contortions; however, most (all?) Bayesian are not as modern Bayesian theory tends to use more modern techniques to identify cognitively meaningful statements.
Quote from: MrBogosity on July 26, 2014, 08:49:49 AM
Again, I feel I have to point out that only the Bayesians have it right here.
It seems to me that the positivists focus primarily on the Prior Probability (which, if anything, is the LEAST significant component since a sufficient string of LRs will cause people who start with wildly different priors to converge on the same posterior), while modern science (the frequentist approach) focuses primarily on the numerator of the LR. And it's pretty much assumed that if that number is sufficiently low (compared to what?) then the statement is falsified.
I call the numerator of the LR the "verification factor" and the denominator the "falsification factor." In Bayesian logic, a statement cannot be definitively falsified any more than it can be definitively confirmed. The verification and falsification factors show the relative strength of H1 and H0. Falsification is absolutely necessary to test a claim, but it doesn't have some exalted position over verification. The question is, how strongly does the evidence validate the hypothesis compared to how strongly it falsifies it. You cannot simply say that a low verification factor is falsification, because the falsification factor may be even lower!
The bottom line is, a hypothesis where p(H)=.00001 is precisely as likely to be confirmed as one where p(H)=.99999 is to be falsified. Pretty much by definition.
Such is the reality of living in a probabilistic world. :) It seems that the human brain just isn't good at handling probability. As you yourself have said. :)
Quote from: BogosityForumUser on July 26, 2014, 12:07:05 PMAs for Bayesian vs positivists, they are actually working on two different problems. Bayesian theory is used in the field of corroboration or confirmation (depending on your school of thought). That is, it lends more power to hypotheses (or statements and hypotheses, again depending on your school of thought). You have to already have a statement or hypothesis before you can use Bayes Theorem. Positivists are concerned with identifying cognitively meaningful statements to begin with. In fact, it is possible to be both at once, with enough intellectual contortions; however, most (all?) Bayesian are not as modern Bayesian theory tends to use more modern techniques to identify cognitively meaningful statements.
Actually, that's just not true. One of the reasons for the Prior Probability is to make sure you're going through the process of having a meaningful statement that you can estimate the probability of to begin with. And really (because of what I said above of a chain of LRs causing wildly different priors to converge on the same posterior), the actual number you come up with for the prior, at least in the context of an inference as opposed to, say, a medical diagnosis, is less important than the fact that you asked the questions that enabled you to come up with that number to begin with.
Phlogiston, for example, was a meaningless hypothesis because the p(H) ended up being 1. Which is why that isn't allowed: if there's no possible LR that can drop your prior, then the conclusion is assumed and locked before you begin. Same if you blindly consider something impossible and consider it to have a p(H) of 0. Coming up with the prior means going through the process of evaluating the claim to make sure there's at least a chance that it could go either way.
Quote from: MrBogosity on July 26, 2014, 01:49:18 PM
Actually, that's just not true. One of the reasons for the Prior Probability is to make sure you're going through the process of having a meaningful statement that you can estimate the probability of to begin with. And really (because of what I said above of a chain of LRs causing wildly different priors to converge on the same posterior), the actual number you come up with for the prior, at least in the context of an inference as opposed to, say, a medical diagnosis, is less important than the fact that you asked the questions that enabled you to come up with that number to begin with.
Phlogiston, for example, was a meaningless hypothesis because the p(H) ended up being 1. Which is why that isn't allowed: if there's no possible LR that can drop your prior, then the conclusion is assumed and locked before you begin. Same if you blindly consider something impossible and consider it to have a p(H) of 0. Coming up with the prior means going through the process of evaluating the claim to make sure there's at least a chance that it could go either way.
Your blanket assertion of falsity makes it a little hard to respond as I am unsure which premise you deny. Perhaps if you expounded a little that might help. But as it stands I don't see what you disagree with because Bayesian theory itself doesn't say if the statement is "meaningful" (and it what sense you mean I don't understand, e.g. scientific, cognitively, etc.). Instead, it seems you use other theories (falsification?) to say whether the hypothesis is acceptable or not.
But it is possible to be a Bayesian and a logical positivist. For example, the resurrection, so to speak, of Bayes can be traced back to Rudolf Carnap. He was also one of the major players in the Vienna Circle. The problem, like I mentioned earlier, it that he had to do some major contortions to get both to work simultaneously.
Quote from: BogosityForumUser on July 26, 2014, 09:17:34 PM
Your blanket assertion of falsity makes it a little hard to respond as I am unsure which premise you deny.
It was that whole section of post I quoted. I'm saying the process of trying to come up with a prior helps you evaluate how meaningful the statement is. If you can't make p(H) anything other than 0 or 1, then it can't possibly describe anything about the universe. Or, to put it another way, it's a statement that can be applied to ALL POSSIBLE universes no matter how they operate, and so it cannot be used to tell you specifics about THIS universe.
With Phlogiston Theory, p(H) was always 1, even with wildly different evidences (e.g., Phlogiston causing wood to lose mass when burned but magnesium to gain mass). As such, it told us nothing about the universe—and even delayed the discovery of oxygen about 100 years!
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on July 24, 2014, 02:28:46 AM
Because so much of Stefan Molyneux's identity is tied into Ayn Rand's philosophy, it seems reasonable that he would gush more over her writings than anybody else's.
I actually have a lot of problems with Stefan Molyneux, mostly because his arguments and techniques are based on rhetoric and strategies, and not so much on reason and evidence. His franchise isn't about truth, so much as it has become about himself. As much as he criticizes people for being sophists, he is himself a sophist, too, and much of his information about psychology is about 90 years out of date. It also doesn't help that he's a climate change denyer and a logical positivist.
Don't get me wrong, Stefan is great when it comes to theater and history. These are his specialties, but like all specialists, he has a tendency to greatly overestimate his expertise in fields he is not an expert in. That's where a lot of his problems come from, and it is really difficult for experts to explain to him his factual errors. He doesn't want to listen, because his show is all about him, not about having a rational discussion to seek out truth as he so often claims.
That whole paragraph is what he calls "arguing by adjective".
As in it's not an argument.
QuoteBecause so much of Stefan Molyneux's identity is tied into Ayn Rand's philosophy, it seems reasonable that he would gush more over her writings than anybody else's.
He has an entire vid talking about what she was wrong about. Please folks, enough with this "If you agree with X in some aspects, that must mean you worship everything about them" polarizing.
QuoteIt also doesn't help that he's a climate change denyer
Hey, I'll believe what the greenies have to say when they act like they actually believe what they say. Fair enough?
QuoteLogical Positivism is based on verification. Essentially, it means that a statement is only meaningful unless it can be proven true. This is a self destructing idea, because you can't prove that only statements proven true are meaningful. Also, it is really hard to prove anything true in any absolute sense. This philosophy of science comes from the Vienna Circle, which dates back about 90 years or so.
So a false statement can be meaningful? Example please
Not to mention "meaningful" is subjective anyway. Meaningful to who? And in what way?
And "nothing is certain" is a statement of certainty. I'm afraid you're the one with the self detonating statement here.
QuoteLogical Positivism was replaced by falsification. Rather then try to verify everything, we attempt to falsify statements instead. This is how contemporary science works, it is also why science only deals with falsifiable statements. Statements that cannot be falsified are considered metaphysical, not scientific, and cannot be regarded as any basis for truth. Metaphysics is about conceptualizing the possible. Science is about rejecting what we know is false.
I challenge you to find me one quote where he says anything contrary to this.
This all sounds like splitting hairs over nothing to me.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on July 28, 2014, 12:55:23 AM
That whole paragraph is what he calls "arguing by adjective".
As in it's not an argument.
These are fair criticisms. Just because I didn't go into detail about what he gets wrong doesn't mean I am wrong or that I have no argument. Brushing things away by calling them "arguing by adjective" is just another rhetorical device intended to doge said criticisms.
Just to give you an example to show I'm not full of hot air, he continually references psychoanalysis, which is a well debunked pseudoscience. Psychology has already gone through behaviorism, cognitivism and now behavioral cognitivism since Sigmund Freud. With each new paradigm shift, theories have been revised and replaced, just like you would expect with any science.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on July 28, 2014, 12:55:23 AM
He has an entire vid talking about what she was wrong about. Please folks, enough with this "If you agree with X in some aspects, that must mean you worship everything about them" polarizing.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on July 28, 2014, 12:55:23 AM
Hey, I'll believe what the greenies have to say when they act like they actually believe what they say. Fair enough?
Since when did belief dictate truth? I thought you were an atheist and a skeptic? Climate change and global warming are real because the science demonstrates it to be so. Just take a look at Potholer54's channel. He explains the science in great detail, answering most every major point of the climate change deniers.
Don't worry, I am sympathetic to your point of view. The fact that climate change is happening, and the fact that it is anthropogenic does not mean that we should all bask in the glory of the omnipotent state to save us with socialism and bureaucratic control. On the contrary, it will take the personal responsibility of everybody to make less of a mess. The atmosphere that we breath is an ungovernable commons that the entire Earth shares. When you pollute in it, you are making an offense against everybody else. For very practical reasons, we are unable to just stop doing our collective pollution, so everybody who holds to libertarian values ought to choose to reduce their pollution much as possible. You don't need a state to make a change like this. All you need is good ethics, scientific awareness and a market demand for products that pollute less or not at all. But that is really hard to do with so much misinformation being fed to the public by oil interests via the news media.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on July 28, 2014, 12:55:23 AM
So a false statement can be meaningful? Example please
Not to mention "meaningful" is subjective anyway. Meaningful to who? And in what way?
We are not debating whether or not false statements can be meaningful. That was never my contention. My contention was to point out that the Verification Principle was self destructive. The verification principle roughly states that in order for a statement to be cognitively meaningful, it must be verifiable. Because the Verification Principle cannot itself be verified to be true, it describes itself as not meeting its own criteria for meaningfulness. In other words, it self destructs. Falsification bypasses this problem because it works in a completely different way.
Rather then find positive evidence for a statement, via verification, falsification tests a statement to see if it can be proven false.
Verification = Finding positive evidence that a statement is true.
Falsification = Finding negative evidence that a statement is false.
Modern science uses the latter of the two, not the former. That's just the way it is. Verification just leaves you way to open to cherry picking and confirmation bias.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on July 28, 2014, 12:55:23 AM
And "nothing is certain" is a statement of certainty. I'm afraid you're the one with the self detonating statement here.
This all sounds like splitting hairs over nothing to me.
Have you ever seen absolute certainty demonstrated? How do you know it even exists? Without proof, I deny the existence of absolute certainty. Strictly as a matter of probability, nothing in the real world is absolutely certain, especially when it comes to quantum mechanics, which is more fundamental to the classical physics we experience. The more times we find a lack of absolute certainty, the less likely the existence of absolute certainty becomes.
When I say "noting is certain" I am saying that absolute certainty is so unlikely that its existence is practically zero, even though it isn't absolutely zero. This is why Shane brings up Bayesian probability theory, to deal with things like this. Ya dig?
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on July 28, 2014, 12:55:23 AM
I challenge you to find me one quote where he says anything contrary to this.
The Verification Principle, from Logical Positivism, is the cornerstone of most of Stefan Molyneaux's arguments, including UPB. He doesn't use falsification at all in any of his arguments. Falsification stands in contrast to Logical Positivism as they are incompatible philosophies. What more information do you need from me for you to accept my point? Don't believe me? Go check it out for yourself. The Verification Principle is usually at the very beginning of most of his arguments that use it.
>A Stefan Molyneux debate
(http://i57.tinypic.com/14xz5at.jpg)
This gon' be good.
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on July 28, 2014, 06:02:24 AM
These are fair criticisms. Just because I didn't go into detail about what he gets wrong doesn't mean I am wrong or that I have no argument.
So you had an argument but chose not put it on the table and I'm expected to just take your word for that? Sure...
QuoteBrushing things away by calling them "arguing by adjective" is just another rhetorical device intended to doge said criticisms.
No it isn't. It's called "bald assertions are not arguments." It's just name calling which means nothing.
QuoteJust to give you an example to show I'm not full of hot air, he continually references psychoanalysis, which is a well debunked pseudoscience. Psychology has already gone through behaviorism, cognitivism and now behavioral cognitivism since Sigmund Freud. With each new paradigm shift, theories have been revised and replaced, just like you would expect with any science.
That's not an example, you made another sweeping generalization there. The fact that you're keeping your arguments nice and vague is really not helping you here.
QuoteSince when did belief dictate truth? I thought you were an atheist and a skeptic? Climate change and global warming are real because the science demonstrates it to be so. Just take a look at Potholer54's channel. He explains the science in great detail, answering most every major point of the climate change deniers.
For the same reason I can safely reject socialized medicine despite not having the time to read all the laws in our books about it. The politicians up here all know the law far better than I do. And they don't use our system. They avoid it like the plague. So if they know more about our system than I do and they clearly don't think it's good, that's all I need.
As I've said before, I can't take global warming seriously because they've cried wolf dozens of times and are never taken to task for it and even now, they don't act in a matter that suggests that they really think global warming is a problem and if they don't think it's a problem, why should I?
When they cut all this "going green is just for the peasants" nonsense, I'll take it a little more seriously. Until then, it's just another government program to me.
QuoteDon't worry, I am sympathetic to your point of view. The fact that climate change is happening, and the fact that it is anthropogenic does not mean that we should all bask in the glory of the omnipotent state to save us with socialism and bureaucratic control. On the contrary, it will take the personal responsibility of everybody to make less of a mess. The atmosphere that we breath is an ungovernable commons that the entire Earth shares. When you pollute in it, you are making an offense against everybody else. For very practical reasons, we are unable to just stop doing our collective pollution, so everybody who holds to libertarian values ought to choose to reduce their pollution much as possible. You don't need a state to make a change like this. All you need is good ethics, scientific awareness and a market demand for products that pollute less or not at all. But that is really hard to do with so much misinformation being fed to the public by oil interests via the news media.
I ride a bike to work, I don't even own a car. So I'm kinda sick and tired of being lectured to by a bunch of pampered princes in academia who all pollute 20 times more than me and support a state who destroys ecosystems and gets away with it.
QuoteModern science uses the latter of the two, not the former. That's just the way it is. Verification just leaves you way to open to cherry picking and confirmation bias.
Have you ever seen absolute certainty demonstrated? How do you know it even exists? Without proof, I deny the existence of absolute certainty. Strictly as a matter of probability, nothing in the real world is absolutely certain, especially when it comes to quantum mechanics, which is more fundamental to the classical physics we experience. The more times we find a lack of absolute certainty, the less likely the existence of absolute certainty becomes.
When I say "noting is certain" I am saying that absolute certainty is so unlikely that its existence is practically zero, even though it isn't absolutely zero. This is why Shane brings up Bayesian probability theory, to deal with things like this. Ya dig?
The Verification Principle, from Logical Positivism, is the cornerstone of most of Stefan Molyneaux's arguments, including UPB. He doesn't use falsification at all in any of his arguments. Falsification stands in contrast to Logical Positivism as they are incompatible philosophies. What more information do you need from me for you to accept my point? Don't believe me? Go check it out for yourself. The Verification Principle is usually at the very beginning of most of his arguments that use it.
He...does falsify statements...all the time. I really don't think you've actually listened to his stuff. This really sounds like it's all just based on heresay.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on July 28, 2014, 12:09:13 PM
So you had an argument but chose not put it on the table and I'm expected to just take your word for that? Sure...
No it isn't. It's called "bald assertions are not arguments." It's just name calling which means nothing.
That's not an example, you made another sweeping generalization there. The fact that you're keeping your arguments nice and vague is really not helping you here.
For the same reason I can safely reject socialized medicine despite not having the time to read all the laws in our books about it. The politicians up here all know the law far better than I do. And they don't use our system. They avoid it like the plague. So if they know more about our system than I do and they clearly don't think it's good, that's all I need.
As I've said before, I can't take global warming seriously because they've cried wolf dozens of times and are never taken to task for it and even now, they don't act in a matter that suggests that they really think global warming is a problem and if they don't think it's a problem, why should I?
When they cut all this "going green is just for the peasants" nonsense, I'll take it a little more seriously. Until then, it's just another government program to me.
I ride a bike to work, I don't even own a car. So I'm kinda sick and tired of being lectured to by a bunch of pampered princes in academia who all pollute 20 times more than me and support a state who destroys ecosystems and gets away with it.
He...does falsify statements...all the time. I really don't think you've actually listened to his stuff. This really sounds like it's all just based on heresay.
1) You are committing a tu quoque fallacy on pretty much all environmentalists. Just because they are hypocrites does not mean you get to appeal to their hypocrisy. If you ride a bike to work, that's fine because nobody cares. That has nothing to do with the truth behind global climate change and warming. You are also making very broad assertions of your own, making it look like they are all a bunch of rich people living in ivory towers. That's just not the case at all, and I can promise you that the scientists sounding the alarm bells are not living in posh living conditions like Al Gore.
2) Pointing out that Stefan Molyneux uses the outdated pseudoscience of psychoanalysis in his videos, particularly his call-in show's dream interpretations, pointing out that the crux of his arguments is the Verification Principle, and pointing out that he's a denier of climate change in defiance of the evidence, are not "bald assertions". These are facts. Deal with them.
Do I seriously need to point you to his climate denial video where he pretty much parrots Christopher Monckton's bullshit? Potholer54 debunked that claptrap a long time ago.
Perhaps you'd like me to show you one of his arguments that use the Verification Principle, or perhaps one of his many psychoanalysis call-in show segments? I have to ask, have you been watching his programming?
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on July 28, 2014, 12:09:13 PM
He...does falsify statements...all the time. I really don't think you've actually listened to his stuff. This really sounds like it's all just based on heresay.
He does falsify statements all the time, you say? That sounds like a balled assertion, not an argument to me. Projection much?
Stefan Molyneux is not a scientist. He's a very bad philosopher and a good historian. You have to learn to accept what he says through that filter, otherwise you'll get bamboozled by his bullshit. He talks way to much outside of his field of expertise.
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on July 28, 2014, 02:46:56 PM
1) You are committing a tu quoque fallacy on pretty much all environmentalists. Just because they are hypocrites does not mean you get to appeal to their hypocrisy. If you ride a bike to work, that's fine because nobody cares. That has nothing to do with the truth behind global climate change and warming. You are also making very broad assertions of your own, making it look like they are all a bunch of rich people living in ivory towers. That's just not the case at all, and I can promise you that the scientists sounding the alarm bells are not living in posh living conditions like Al Gore.
I think you two are talking past each other. You seem to be asking "Is it a real effect?" and Hawkeye seems to be asking "How seriously should I take it?" Two different discussions.
Quote from: MrBogosity on July 28, 2014, 03:20:40 PM
I think you two are talking past each other. You seem to be asking "Is it a real effect?" and Hawkeye seems to be asking "How seriously should I take it?" Two different discussions.
Reminds me of a few...interesting tidbits I've gleaned over the years regarding this deal:
For one, I'm just not worried. Even according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's own estimates, the WORST case scenario is 2 feet deeper oceans after 1000 years.
As you have pointed out, something often not talked about is that increasing the carbon dioxide and increasing global temperature actually has benefits too. I recall you pointing out that even the government scientists themselves estimate the costs will exceed the benefits starting around 2040.
Not ALL scientists think "cutting back" or "get govco involved" is the solution. It's not the scientists. It's the media pinheads and hippy morons who purport to speak for them who are saying that.
Alarmist: It's us, our cows, cars, coal power plants, etc!
Denialist: It's the sun, ants, termites, volcanoes, etc!
An actual scientist: It's all of those things you morons!
(Stolen/paraphrased from Shane, natch.)
And of course, as me, Stef, Jacob Spiney, and even ReasonTV have pointed out, we could do something like the marine cloud whitening program and reverse ALL man-made climate change for less than a billion dollars without any of the issues of current proposed ideas which are either pointless cash/power grabs (carbon taxes/credits, subsidies, etc). And "cutting back?" Just a painful way to postpone the inevitable. I mean come on, people! Using up resources to turn into better things we value more is the entire basis of the economy (well, okay, it's technically mutually beneficial voluntary exchange, but close enough. :P). The idea that we need to cut back is just asinine. Lots of things we consider resources and swag were once considered waste because we lacked the technology. Gasoline being a waste product 120 years ago? Ditto for Oil over 500 years ago. And who can forgot the trees saved by the internet. I bet my thumbdrive has saved more trees than all the hippies ever will or could. It's not like Anarcho capitalists, including Austrian Economists haven't dived into this stuff. It deals with economic value and transactions, ergo it IS an economic issue as it deals with preserving value and private property, and needs to be addressed from that angle.*
And as me and Shane have constantly pointed out, we could also fix the extra carbon dioxide bit by going to nuclear power. If we tore down all the coal power plants and replaced them with Thorium ones and were able to reenrich the 'waste' (which we can't now because of bullshit government anti-nuclear weapons treaties) we'd have cheap, clean, efficient power. Enough to last over 1000 years. Without having to cut back on a damn thing.
At the very least going nuclear would help with pollution. All the nuclear disasters in history have produced only a mere 20 tons of radioactive waste. Compare that to 50 per year from a single perfectly functioning coal plant. And of course, the mercury and other crap it spews into the atmosphere.
Solar and wind are nowhere NEAR large scale globally viable at this time. They have no 3 phase power (REALLY hurts efficiency and/or reliability) and have no power on demand (NOT good), and have more energy changes (from wind, to electrical, to battery, etc) if you want to overcome that no power on demand thing which further harms efficiency. Maybe after nuclear has run it's course, maybe as niche market, but certainly not now is it anywhere NEAR viable. While nuclear is something awesome, and good right here, right now.
What's more, we could switch to a stable currency *coughGoldcough* and since we'd have less incentive to spend all our money before it loses its value, (THANKS FEDERAL RESERVE!), we'd consume less...and so we'd waste less.
So if there IS a problem regarding Climate Change, it's one that we already have a fair chunk of very good free market solutions to. All we need is for govco and its followers (including/especially the hippies who don't know what the fuck they're talking about) to STFU & GTFO of our way.
*As The "Are You An Austrian" quiz has pointed out for this:
https://mises.org/quiz.aspx
14. What is your view of economics and the environment?
The Austrian Answer:
"Virtually all issues concerning the environment involve conflicts over ownership. So long as there is private ownership, owners themselves solve these conflicts by forbidding and punishing trespass. The incentive to conserve is an inherent feature of the market incentive structure. So too is the incentive to preserve all things of value. The liability for soiling another's property should be borne by the person who caused the damage. Common ownership is no solution. Because national parks, for example, are not privately owned, the goal of economical management will always be elusive."
Simple, no? If you want a more in depth answer, concerning, specifically air pollution, I'd recommend reading this article:
https://mises.org/daily/2120
By Murray N. Rothbard which deals with it in far greater detail. This IS an economic issue and is and has long been dealt as one.
And of course, Fish Legal in the UK and other examples Shane has pointed out. And let's not forget the rainforest issue...clear cutting? Only on government land, while loggers plant more trees to ensure future returns. And the Canadian Fisheries...
And last but not least, as I said on Google Plus:
Fact: Governments are the world's biggest polluters by far even if you don't count war.
So if someone is railing on about the environment, yet continually ignores and evades the government's destruction of it, or, even worse, demands a political solution to environmental issues, said person is a bullshiter you can safely ignore.
Quote from: MrBogosity on July 28, 2014, 03:20:40 PM
I think you two are talking past each other. You seem to be asking "Is it a real effect?" and Hawkeye seems to be asking "How seriously should I take it?" Two different discussions.
It is a real effect and it should be taken seriously. Its been pointed out that the effect, if any, will not happen for some time. However, there are some problems with this line of reasoning.
1) Sea level rise and higher temperatures will not be the only problems. Methane hydrate deposits and methane trapped in permafrost are already being released, which will only serve to intensify the global warming effect and subsequent climate changes. The increases in temperature and CO2 have already been shown to be deadly to marine life, especially along the coasts. A lot of people depend on the ocean for food, so ocean acidification will be very disruptive to them.
2) The fact that we won't have to deal with the more serious effects of global warming and climate change in our lifetimes is not a reason to brush away concern. Much as we talk about the unethical nature of the Federal Reserve being used as a mechanism to barrow against the earnings of future generations of people, so to are we causing a problem that future generations will have to face. And this problem will likely get far worse beyond 100 years from now, especially if we reach the point of no return when positive feedback fully kicks in.
3) Geoengineering to mitigate the problem of global warming and climate change is not a solution, but a treatment. If you have a patient with an unhealthy lifestyle that asks for pills to fix everything, what would you say? As a doctor, you would advise lifestyle changes as a long term solution, but human nature being what it is, patients rarely ever make those changes, so doctors typically put patients on a cocktail of drugs to treat high cholesterol, diabetes and high blood pressure, and these drugs are not without side effects. That's what geoengineering for global climate change is, a treatment for lifestyle related illness that will likely have unintended side effects.
4) This is a tragedy of the commons problem, and I don't believe it will go away through government regulation. Rather then tell everybody to do their part to stop climate change, like a socialist bureaucrat, I'm going to tell everybody
to stop doing their part to cause it. If pollution is an aggression against the entire world, then we are obligated by our ethics to reduce and eventually stop the harm we are causing everybody else.
But if we want to get back on point, "how seriously should we take it," may I suggest Potholer54's most recent video:
[yt]VNgqv4yVyDw[/yt]
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on July 28, 2014, 02:46:56 PM
Just because they are hypocrites does not mean you get to appeal to their hypocrisy.
Actually yes it does because I already said, these people know the topic far better than I do and their actions suggest that they don't believe it or at least don't think it's that big a deal. So if they know better than I do and they don't believe it, that's all I need.
Actions matter, words don't. I know they say it's a big deal and we should take it seriously. That means nothing. Fear sells. Good news gets you ignored. I've already done this dance before. Heck, the climate change hysterics have gotten strangely quiet these days even. You'd think they'd get louder the closer we got to armageddon.
And really, the whole thing is rendered moot because ending the state would end the vast majority of pollution anyway with no more getting in the way of progress, no more subsidies going to the careless, the wasteful and the foolish and no more wars. Problem solved. Whatever environomental problems might be left after that would be small potatoes and easily managed. All the guilt tripping nonsense is just wasting everyone's time.
Quote
He does falsify statements all the time, you say?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tobN6iY4iIs Whole bunch of examples in there just to pull one out of the air.
Refutes a lot of media nonsense quite a lot.
Still have no clue what you're going on about with the "Verification is wrong cuz reasons" nonsense. Really sounds like vague hair splitting just to look smart to me.
No, you still don't get to make an appeal to hypocrisy. If anything, the actions of wealthy people like Al Gore tell me that they in fact do not know what they are talking about. Given how wealthy they are, you would expect them to be the most able to purchase a carbon negative lifestyle. Between building their own solar roofs and wind turbines, and switching to more efficient home lighting and geothermal HVAC systems, you would expect them to be putting these technologies to good use. As far as I can tell, they are not. That's too bad, because when wealthy people become early adopters, they fund innovations in manufacturing that lower costs, making these technologies more affordable to the masses.
So far, we agree, but where we disagree is the notion that liberal hypocrisy has anything to do with climate science. It does not, and to suggest otherwise is a tu quoque fallacy. Being a hypocrite and being factually correct are not mutually exclusive. Why? Because hypocrisy is a matter of ethics, while facts are a matter of epistemology. These are two different branches of philosophy. They don't overlap. Which leads me to one problem I have with UPB, where verbal gymnastics are used to turn value judgments (ought) into facts (is), but we'l get to UPB in a moment.
My bottom line is, if you want to be critical of climate science and what we should do about global warming and climate change, then look to the scientists, not the celebrities. When you criticize climate science based on the behavior of celebrities and rich liberals, you just look like a sophist. Why? Because an appeal to hypocrisy exploits a heuristic people use to judge the reliability of the information they receive. It is in no way a methodical algorithm for the determination of truth, like science.
To explain the difference between algorithms vs. heuristics, I suggest this Crash Course video at 4m4s:
[yt]R-sVnmmw6WY?t=4m4s[/yt]
and
Wikipedia: [wiki]Heuristics_in_judgment_and_decision-making[/wiki]
As for Stefan Molyneux, it doesn't matter if he's ever used falsification or not. My point was that his major arguments, such as UPB, are based on verification, not falsification. If he uses a self destructing premise, like the verification principle, as a cornerstone to an argument, such as UPB, then it logically follows that the rest of the argument is wrong. He has to start over or fix his arguments so that they do not rely upon the verification principle.
But since you don't seem to understand why the verification principle is wrong to use, let me explain in a simple syllogism.
The verification principle roughly states that in order for a statement to be meaningful, it must be verifiable.
The verification principle cannot be verified.
Therefore, the verification principle has no meaning.
I do not know how I can make this any clearer or any more black and white.
You can seen an example right here on bullet point two at 1m59s: [yt]CueDiner6t0?t=1m59s[/yt]
He defines science as "a statement that is 'true' must describe something that is objective, rational or predictable". This is a modified version of the verification principle and it is also NOT how science works. Though we do not verify statements in science anymore, we do attempt to falsify them because the former method of inquiry opens us up to confirmation bias and the cherry picking fallacy.
Here is another example at 17m18s: [yt]A12hmmRALo0?t=17m18s[/yt]
He criticizes agnostics for saying that gods are very unlikely, but not impossible. [He's actually wrong here because Agnostic Atheists reject the idea of gods, but they don't assert the positive claim that gods do not exist, but I digress.] He then says that agnostics are wrong because their are no tests that will detect a god, thus gods do not exist. You cannot make such an argument unless you are using the Verification Principle. More over, it puts the burden of proof on himself to prove that gods do not exist as a hard atheist. Do you see the connection he's making with Logical Positivism, yet?
The reason somebody would call themselves an agnostic theist is, not because their are no tests for gods, but because gods are not falsifiable concepts. Instead, they rely upon Bayesian probability theory to determine that gods are extremely unlikely, and reject them on that basis alone. But that is not the same as positively proving that gods do not exist.
In science, before you can develop a standard test for something, like a god, you must first come up with an experiment that will falsify your theory. Using the LHC, scientists were able to test the standard model of particle physics based on predictions it makes about the Higgs boson at a given power level. The experiment failed to falsify the theory, because the Higgs boson was found where expected. Now that we know something about Higgs bosons, scientists can perhaps develop specialized tests specifically for detecting Higgs bosons. But until that part of the Standard Model was tested, developing a specific test for the Higgs boson would have been impossible. Nobody would know what the properties would be of what ever it was they were looking for!
In science, we have what are known as "gold standard" tests. These are the original tests used to attempt falsification of a given theory. That makes these tests extremely valuable in evaluating other methods that are often quicker and less expensive. Let's say your doctor is looking for a particular protein in your blood. The cheep test would probably be a colormetric method, where different reagents are mixed together with your plasma, resulting in a measurable color change. Tests like this are often developed because gold standard tests like X-Ray crystallography and chromatography are very expensive. If the newer, cheaper tests can be shown to be just as good or at least good enough compared to the gold standard methods, then they are sold to labs for commercial use. Without a "gold standard" for falsifying a testable god theory, a test for gods doesn't make any sense. Without knowing the properties of gods, if they exist, how could you possibly test for them? You can't!
There is something you need to consider, Hawkeye, concerning Stefan Molyneux, and that is the Dunning–Kruger effect, and many of Molyneux's videos are rife with it.
Wikipeda: [wiki]Dunning–Kruger_effect[/wiki]
This is why I tell people to beware when Stefan Molyneux talks about areas of expertise that are clearly outside of his area of expertise, such as the sciences of climatology and psychology. He's grossly overestimating his abilities in these areas.
Quote from: D on July 28, 2014, 08:18:29 AM
>A Stefan Molyneux debate
(http://i57.tinypic.com/14xz5at.jpg)
This gon' be good.
what he said ^
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on August 01, 2014, 03:31:31 AM
No, you still don't get to make an appeal to hypocrisy. If anything, the actions of wealthy people like Al Gore tell me that they in fact do not know what they are talking about. Given how wealthy they are, you would expect them to be the most able to purchase a carbon negative lifestyle. Between building their own solar roofs and wind turbines, and switching to more efficient home lighting and geothermal HVAC systems, you would expect them to be putting these technologies to good use. As far as I can tell, they are not. That's too bad, because when wealthy people become early adopters, they fund innovations in manufacturing that lower costs, making these technologies more affordable to the masses.
QuoteMy bottom line is, if you want to be critical of climate science and what we should do about global warming and climate change, then look to the scientists, not the celebrities.
Okay, so how many climate change scientists are doing the things you mentioned?
QuoteSo far, we agree, but where we disagree is the notion that liberal hypocrisy has anything to do with climate science. It does not, and to suggest otherwise is a tu quoque fallacy. Being a hypocrite and being factually correct are not mutually exclusive. Why? Because hypocrisy is a matter of ethics, while facts are a matter of epistemology. These are two different branches of philosophy. They don't overlap.
It absolutely does demonstrate, at best, belief-in-belief. It's our beliefs that motivate our actions, and if someone's actions are incongruous with their stated beliefs, it's a very strong indication that they don't actually believe it, even if they THINK they do.
Quote
The verification principle roughly states that in order for a statement to be meaningful, it must be verifiable.
The verification principle cannot be verified.
Therefore, the verification principle has no meaning.
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.
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.
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."
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."
QuoteHe defines science as "a statement that is 'true' must describe something that is objective, rational or predictable". This is a modified version of the verification principle and it is also NOT how science works. Though we do not verify statements in science anymore, we do attempt to falsify them because the former method of inquiry opens us up to confirmation bias and the cherry picking fallacy.
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.
Besides, aren't you thus saying that something CAN be objective, rational and predictable and yet still be false? Example please.
QuoteThe reason somebody would call themselves an agnostic theist is, not because their are no tests for gods, but because gods are not falsifiable concepts.
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.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on August 02, 2014, 01:03:45 AM
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."
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."
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!
Quote from: MrBogosity on August 02, 2014, 07:19:18 AM
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.
Quote from: dallen68 on August 02, 2014, 09:17:36 AM
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.
QuoteAs 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?
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.
Quote from: MrBogosity on August 02, 2014, 07:19:18 AM
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.
Quote from: MrBogosity on August 01, 2014, 08:03:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on August 02, 2014, 01:03:45 AM
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.
QuoteYou'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.
QuoteAnd 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.
QuoteIt'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.
QuoteThis 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.
QuoteBesides, 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?
QuoteNor 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.
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on August 28, 2014, 04:35:38 AM
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.
Quote from: MrBogosity on August 28, 2014, 07:01:46 AM
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.
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on September 01, 2014, 02:31:13 AM
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.
Quotethe 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.
QuoteIn 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.
Quote from: MrBogosity on September 01, 2014, 08:53:20 AM
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. :)
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.
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on September 01, 2014, 06:51:58 PM
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?
QuoteThe 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.