Climate change broke houston weather again. (The official everyone gets a h[w]oosh thread)
-
there is no rational basis for this assumption
TIL that reaching a logical conclusion based on maths and/or experimental observation is irrational
-
Scientists, especially research scientists, need to be able to apply reason and logic to a much greater extent than the others;
Fields vary, of course. There is a lot of room for shenanigans when you work in a field where it is difficult to test predictions (climate science is a great example...people in the field have often said that it will take decades to see if their predictions pan out).
scientists are among the most rational, if not the most rational.
I'm not buying it. And it's a very low bar in any case.
-
TIL that reaching a logical conclusion based on maths and/or experimental observation is irrational
At first, I was disappointed with summoning @Gaska, but I can see it's starting to pay off.
-
There is a lot of room for shenanigans when you work in a field where it is difficult to test predictions
True
@boomzilla said:And it's a very low bar in any case.
Also trueAt any rate, I think we can agree that the 'news' media is more irrational than the scientists, mainly because irrationality allows for fear, and fear sells.
At first, I was disappointed with summoning @Gaska, but I can see it's starting to pay off.
I must have missed off the [/sarcasm] tag…
-
It is certainly a lot easier to ignore me than to try to refute anything with actual evidence :(
-
TIL that reaching a logical conclusion based on maths and/or experimental observation is irrational
How does maths help you in determining if your eyes are functioning properly?How can you perform unbiased experimental observation of the very things you perform observation with?
-
Especially when I make it easy by using words like "all" so that you merely needed to come up with one credible source to stick in my face and make me have to back down on what I said.
TBH, I meant in this topic anyway... all i have seen in this topic is people CLAIMING that everyone for climate change is all instadoom and gloom, but no one has posted anything but claims and strawmen.
-
How does maths help you in determining if your eyes are functioning properly?
Personally, I prefer to go to an opticians to answer that question.
@Gaska said:How can you perform unbiased experimental observation of the very things you perform observation with?
Quantum mechanics researchers seem to have figures that one out; go ask them.
-
Personally, I prefer to go to an opticians to answer that question.
And this will only work if your ears are working correctly when listening to his interpretation of results. How would you assert this?Quantum mechanics researchers seem to have figures that one out; go ask them.
AFAIK quantum mechanics say you can't directly observe every aspect of things with absolute certainty.
-
Can you act rationally based on false information?
-
It is certainly a lot easier to ignore me than to try to refute anything with actual evidence :(
You guys were talking about hyperbole already. There have been claims for years that the North Pole will be ice free in X years. If you're seriously claiming that there's no climate alarmist hyperbole, then you deserve to be ignored.
Fuck. I did it again.
-
If you're seriously claiming that there's no climate alarmist hyperbole
That's what I've been saying this whole time.
And the fact that darkmatter jumped on me immediately, just proves that point.
Climate-change scientists get to hide their exaggerations behind the consensus.
-
@Gaska said:
there is no rational basis for this assumption
TIL that reaching a logical conclusion based on maths and/or experimental observation is irrationalNo, he's saying that you can't test for whether observations and reality are in agreement. Because you can't say, go to a universe where you observe falling down, but in fact are falling sideways.
In short, you can't observe whether your observations are lying to you.
But, in reality, we are tricked by our observations all the time.
So it's not rational to assume you've observed correctly.
But the whole point is flat, because if what I observe isn't happening, does the true reality matter at all? If I cannot notice that my arm just got chopped off because I don't feel pain, and when I go to use my arm it actually still works, does it really matter at all that my arm is chopped off?
The only reality that matters is the reality that affects us.
So if you're actually insane, and you really are sitting in a padded room, rocking back and forth, and my posts are just figments of your imagination....
... the padded room doesn't matter all that much to you at all.
INCEPTION!
-
And this will only work if your ears are working correctly when listening to his interpretation of results. How would you assert this?
By going to the ear doctor.
@Gaska said:AFAIK quantum mechanics say you can't directly observe every aspect of things with absolute certainty.
You can't know what's going to happen thirty seconds from now with absolute certainty; doesn't make it irrational.
@xaade said:No, he's saying that you can't test for whether observations and reality are in agreement. Because you can't say, go to a universe where you observe falling down, but in fact are falling sideways.
So we must dismiss science as irrational because we can't cross to a parallel universe?
-
So we must dismiss science as irrational because we can't cross to a parallel universe?
No, we go on with the assumption, because only the things that affect us, actually matter.
-
No, he's saying that you can't test for whether observations and reality are in agreement.
I've already decided to assume that @Gaska isn't real.
-
But either way @Gaska affects you. So they are real by some measure.
-
Prove it.
-
You typed the letters @Gaska.
You know that something exists that makes posts that calls itself @Gaska
Therefore, @Gaska affects you.
-
On my status symbol keyboard.
-
By going to the ear doctor.
And you will be able to hear the ear doctor's verdict only if your ears are working correctly. How can you assert that?You can't know what's going to happen thirty seconds from now with absolute certainty; doesn't make it irrational.
In theoretical physics, you can - and it will be perfectly rational.So we must dismiss science as irrational because we can't cross to a parallel universe?
Who said anything about dismissing science?I've already decided to assume that @Gaska isn't real.
This statement is as irrational as the opposite would be.But either way @Gaska affects you. So they are real by some measure.
You can't determine if I'm real or not without seeing me face to face.You typed the letters @Gaska.
You know that something exists that makes posts that calls itself @Gaska
Therefore, @Gaska affects you.
To be absolutely sure I have affected you, we should recreate all the topics I've ever posted in, without me posting in them, and see if they still produced mentions of @Gaska.@discoursebot - @mentioning name, putting dot at the end and then pressing Enter doesn't put newline and deletes the dot.
-
@Gaska - Last Day Without A Discourse Bug: null
-
And you will be able to hear the ear doctor's verdict only if your ears are working correctly. How can you assert that?
By the fact that the ear doctor told me they're fucking working properly.
-
You can't determine if I'm real or not without seeing me face to face.
I can't determine if you are a separate sentient being.
I can determine if you are real, because you are, even if you only exist as some inaccessible part of my brain that's acting on its own.
But even if I see you face to face, I still can't determine you are a separate sentient being.
But I can then determine if you are human, because my definition of human is how I perceive them, even if they are existing only as some inaccessible part of my brain... yada yada.
-
What if he says they are working properly, but then you can't hear him say that?
-
Then they're a lying fucktard. Or in a different room. Or the phone call just cut out. Or he wrote it down.
And cue @Gaska moving the goalposts yet again…
-
I can determine if you are real, because you are, even if you only exist as some inaccessible part of my brain that's acting on its own.
Define "real".And cue @Gaska moving the goalposts yet again…
I haven't touched any goalposts. We're still talking, and were always talking (since I entered this topic), about the fact it's possible you're blind, deaf and braindead without realizing it.
-
We're still talking, and were always talking (since I entered this topic), about the fact it's possible you're blind, deaf and braindead without realizing it.
Firstly, bollocks; we were talking about science and rationality.
Secondly, by the very definition of 'braindead' you won't be aware of it.
-
There was also consensus that light travelled through ether; that one lasted centuries before being proven wrong.
That's part of the point. We have a long history of the consensus being incomplete or just plain wrong.
Science determinesSome of the scientists determine something, and thenlets everyone elseother scientists argue until they're dead.And these are the most rational people. Right.
Fields vary, of course. There is a lot of room for shenanigans when you work in a field where it is difficult to test predictions (climate science is a great example...people in the field have often said that it will take decades to see if their predictions pan out).
In other words, the models aren't falsifiable in practice. Some would say that would make climate science not really a science.
On my status symbol keyboard.
Where do I get one of those? I think I may need one, being disenfranchised and all. Or does my Das Keyboard count?
-
That's part of the point. We have a long history of the consensus being incomplete or just plain wrong.
And that affects rationality how?
-
Firstly, bollocks; we were talking about science and rationality.
I was saying science is rational in its conclusions but irrational in its assumption that scientists aren't blind, deaf and braindead.Secondly, by the very definition of 'braindead' you won't be aware of it.
You just made an irrational assumption that awareness requires brain.Still, if you weren't braindead, but blind and deaf, it's still possible you won't realize you're blind and deaf.
-
I was saying science is rational in its conclusions but irrational in its assumption that scientists aren't blind, deaf and braindead.
So when it's the only assumption that makes any fucking sense whatsoever, that's irrational?
-
So when it's the only assumption that makes any fucking sense whatsoever, that's irrational?
In essence, yes.As I already said several times, irrationality isn't always bad.
-
In other words, the models aren't falsifiable in practice. Some would say that would make climate science not really a science.
That's the problem
Everything past, CO2 has a warming effect in the atmosphere, but can reach saturation and no longer have an increasing effect, is just educated guesses without the ability to test.
There are numerous feedback effects, we can determine what caused them, and what effect they have.
But we cannot determine the final outcome of all of these interacting feedback effects.
And that's why making a model of that, is always going to be biased.
Every conjecture of the results of the interacting feedback effects, are just WAG
-
@RaceProUK said:
So when it's the only assumption that makes any fucking sense whatsoever, that's irrational?
In essence, yes.
Then I cannot take anything you say seriously.
-
And that affects rationality how?
The irrational part is being 100% sure that today's consensus is correct, given our prior history.
-
being 100% sure that today's consensus is correct
Is not a position I am maintaining, have never maintained, and will never maintain.
-
The consensus is correct. That is that CO2 warms the planet, but to a limit only. That humans dumped an appreciable amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. That the warming causes feedback effects.
The speculation based on the consensus is political. That the overall net effect is not containable, will break the point of balance, and cascade into extreme conditions.
Either way, people are wrong for calling skeptics loonies. But skeptics are attacking the wrong thing. They are attacking what we know is true, rather than the speculation that is in excess of the consensus.
-
@antiquarian said:
being 100% sure that today's consensus is correct
Is not a position I am maintaining, have never maintained, and will never maintain.True, but many other people do maintain that position.
EDIT: I never said that you were irrational. I'll leave that to a certain fox.
-
This statement is as irrational as the opposite would be.
You've apparently defined rationality to be something meaningless (I came to this conclusion in the previous discussion). Well done.
-
Where do I get one of those? I think I may need one, being disenfranchised and all. Or does my Das Keyboard count?
I'm sure it's better than the Dell that came with the rest of my machine. But I prefer to think of myself as a global 1%er rather than an American upper middle classer.
-
I never said that you were irrational.
Everyone's at least a bit irrational; we are all creatures in slave to our emotions, after all ;)
-
I was saying science is rational in its conclusions but irrational in its assumption that scientists aren't blind, deaf and braindead.
Geez, and now I find myself arguing with @Gaska that he's assuming too much rationality.
-
Everyone's at least a bit irrational; we are all creatures in slave to our emotions, after all
And that doesn't go away when we do science. That's why we need things like falsifiability and peer review.
-
I was saying science is rational in its conclusions but irrational in its assumption that scientists aren't
blind, deaf and braindeadunbiased, ethical, etc..also
-
You've apparently defined rationality to be something meaningless (I came to this conclusion in the previous discussion).
Rational thinking means deriving logical conclusions from facts. Facts are either conclusions previously derived in rational way, or irrational assumptions. Some people treat rational conclusions based on irrational assumptions as irrational - which is in line with common sense in most situations, but when taken to logical extreme, common sense dictates to treat some assumptions as rational, without clearly defined rule. Otherwise, humans couldn't function in the world.
-
-
That's why we need things like falsifiability and peer review
It protected us from thinking a pig was the missing link.
But what if everyone is duped by an error?
I personally believe that the person advocating the missing link, wanted so much to have found the missing link, that they lied to themselves. Which shows that notoriety is enough for a scientist to ignore ethics.
-
Rational thinking means deriving logical conclusions from facts. Facts are either conclusions previously derived in rational way, or irrational assumptions. Some people treat rational conclusions based on irrational assumptions as irrational - which is in line with common sense in most situations, but when taken to logical extreme, common sense dictates to treat some assumptions as rational, without clearly defined rule. Otherwise, humans couldn't function in the world.
Your stuff about Einsteins eyes sounds like sophistry. OK, philosophically, can we have metaphysical certainty about our senses? No, I guess not. But experience with our senses and the predictions we've made with them and how that stuff turned out? I think that provides a rational basis for Einstein trusting his eyes when reading an equation on a piece of paper.
It's fun to get absurd sometimes, just as long as you don't start to believe your own trolling. I haven't formed an opinion on whether you do or not, but I'm leaning toward the affirmative on this bit.
http://basicinstructions.net/storage/2015-05-28-crazyre.gif?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1432838676370
-
But what if everyone is duped by an error?
That's a real problem, especially when the response to dissenters is GTFO. I remember reading at one point someone from weather.com saying climate change dissenters should lose their licenses. When you actively discourage falsification attempts, I would say that you're no longer doing science.
