Climate change broke houston weather again. (The official everyone gets a h[w]oosh thread)
-
Example of how assumption can be a fact: 1+1=2. You can't argue that - but it only works like that because of the common agreement of how numbers work.
Example of how a fact can be irrational: the existence of God. Most people (especially before 20th century) consider it a fact, without any logical basis.
-
Eventually, reality will intrude no matter how much peer review there is. That, or the subject was irrelevant to begin with and no one really cares.
-
In the long run we are all dead.
-
He conveniently ignored my earlier question: Can you act rationally based on false information?
Most people would say yes: To be rational means to follow reasonable, logical steps based on the information you have. Gaska would seem to say no, the fact that you were lied to makes your actions irrational.
-
Any logical system relies on its axioms. These are by definition things that are assumed to be true and cannot be proved. If your conclusion is logically consistent with your premises, then you have a rational conclusion.
It's often very useful to vary axioms, whether or not you think they're true, to see what sort of things fall out.
-
Example of how assumption can be a fact: 1+1=2. You can't argue that - but it only works like that because of the common agreement of how numbers work.
Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell proved 1+1=2 in Principia Mathematica, where they derived the concept of a number from set theory.
@Gaska said:Example of how a fact can be irrational: the existence of God.
For something to be a fact, it must be possible to prove it is true; the existence of God cannot, by definition, be proved.
-
Most people would say yes: To be rational means to follow reasonable, logical steps based on the information you have. Gaska would seem to say no, the fact that you were lied to makes your actions irrational.
I'm pretty confident that most people, when presented a hot air balloon design that exploits the fact gravity pulls things upwards, would call it irrational. Yet they think it's rational to think that what they've read is what is written. That's called common sense, and it's for the most part irrational itself.Myself, I don't think about rationality too much, as long as something seems to work. I just, from time to time, bring up the fact our society works based on millions of irrational assumptions, for amusement.
-
Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell proved 1+1=2 in Principia Mathematica, where they derived the concept of a number from set theory.
Apply my statement recursively to everything used to prove the previous thing.For something to be a fact, it must be possible to prove it is true; the existence of God cannot, by definition, be proved.
It can be proven indirectly based on assumption that something must have created the world. Some people also claim to have experimentally proven God's existence.
-
Apply my statement recursively to everything used to prove the previous thing.
Do you ever leave the goalposts in the same stadium for more than two posts? Do you ever leave the goalposts in the same country for more than two posts?
@Gaska said:It can be proven indirectly based on assumption that something must have created the world.
What, aside from the gravitational collapse of the protoplanetary disc?
@Gaska said:Some people also claim to have experimentally proven God's existence.
Miracles? Really‽
-
Apply my statement recursively to everything used to prove the previous thing.
Aaaaand once again @Gaska denies rationality is a thing.
I'm pretty confident that most people, when presented a hot air balloon design that exploits the fact gravity pulls things upwards, would call it irrational.
Would they? They might if they thought irrational was a synonym for "don't understand." I'd quibble that gravity isn't pulling anything upwards here, but that's just rubbing it in.
-
-
Aaaaand once again @Gaska denies rationality is a thing.
Care to elaborate? I'm just looking for something that @RaceProUK will call undeniable fact, and that cannot be proved in the rational process.Would they?
They'd say "it can't work because gravity pulls down. You're insane".
-
I'm just looking for something that @RaceProUK will call undeniable fact, and that cannot be proved in the rational process.
Not possible: facts by definition are provable.
-
Care to elaborate? I'm just looking for something that @RaceProUK will call undeniable fact, and that cannot be proved in the rational process.
Oops, my bad...you're right. @RaceProUK could read my post about axioms above to see why you're right.
They'd say "it can't work because gravity pulls down. You're insane".
They wouldn't literally think I'm insane (assuming they'd just witnessed the balloon and not just listened to me describe one). Still, people are often mistaken.
-
@RaceProUK could read my post about axioms above to see why you're right.
Personally, I wouldn't call axioms facts; I'd call them axioms
-
But if you're going to prove a fact, you have to have some axioms in there somewhere. It's most definitely not logical propositions all the way down.
-
True, but it's also true that the axioms have to be chosen in such a way as to allow a system of logic to function properly; the core set of axioms has to be logically consistent. And to get that, you have to be able to rationalise your choice of axioms.
-
Flat-earth was a scientific idea based on observations
You're going back before there was anything we could reasonably call "Science" before you get to genuine belief that the Earth is flat. The ancient Greeks had a decent approximation for the circumference, and any sailors who thought their mates fell off the edge would have been proven wrong as soon as they came back. After that observation it's fairly trivial to work out there's a curvature
-
They wouldn't literally think I'm insane (assuming they'd just witnessed the balloon and not just listened to me describe one).
I said, hot air balloon design. So you only described it to them, not built one. But even if you built one, it wouldn't work because the gravity actually pulls downwards, not upwards. Even though the design would be perfectly rational (at least to me).True, but it's also true that the axioms have to be chosen in such a way as to allow a system of logic to function properly; the core set of axioms has to be logically consistent.
Logically consistent != rational. Also, making irrational axioms != making axioms irrationally.And to get that, you have to be able to rationalise your choice of axioms.
You can't rationalize axioms by the very definition.
-
I said, hot air balloon design. So you only described it to them, not built one. But even if you built one, it wouldn't work because the gravity actually pulls downwards, not upwards. Even though the design would be perfectly rational (at least to me).
Well, it depends on if you explained why you were heating the air. I will concede that some people might approach this as irrationality and some would wonder what they were missing and ask for more information.
-
I would like to take this opportunity to reply to a couple of points with the same level of sense as the points themselves.
@Gaska said:Logically consistent != rational
Potato kumquat excursion.
@Gaska said:You can't rationalize axioms by the very definition.
Horseradish dandelion shoe.
-
I would like to take this opportunity to reply to a couple of points with the same level of sense as the points themselves.
My shoulder aliens say that you mean that you consider the next two quotes you made a complete bullshit. Because you're not blakey, I'll take my shoulder aliens' words for granted. This means that we both talk about different kind of rationality, because if we were talking about the same, you wouldn't say axioms are rational (ie. provable).Then tell me, what is rationality other than the process of logically making conclusions?
-
where they derived the concept of a number from set theory.
you mean set theory, where certain things are assumed to be true.
Those certain things wouldn't happen to include that if you have 1 item in a set, and you put another item in the set, you now have two items in the set?
Circular irrationality.
-
I don't know what you've been reading, but it certainly isn't anything I've written.
Come back when you've read my words, instead of pulling them out of your arse.
-
I would like very much to read your definition of rationality, but I can't find it.
-
And the fact that darkmatter jumped on me immediately, just proves that point.
It does? So my finding your own brand of alarmism to be stupid somehow proves that there are lots of climate alarmists?
Great logic.And once again, no one else has posted anything actually backing any points they've made. Other than if you count xaade posting an article he claims he didn't believe anyway. I posted the study that backs the only thing I've claimed so far.
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.
Source.There are numerous feedback effects, we can determine what caused them, and what effect they have.
Source.Every conjecture of the results of the interacting feedback effects, are just WAG
Exactly, your conjecture is all WAG. Since, you know, you clearly have no fucking clue and haven't even remotely come close to anything of real evidence other than pulling shit out of your ass.
-
Those certain things wouldn't happen to include that if you have 1 item in a set, and you put another item in the set, you now have two items in the set?
Not quite:
-
Guys!
I think I get it.
@Gaska is saying that any rational conclusions must start with irrational assumptions.
In other words, rational thought isn't associative.
If a->b is irrational, and b->c is rational, a->c is not necessarily irrational.
-
And once again, no one else has posted anything actually backing any points they've made.
CITE YOUR SHIT, EH? OK, fair enough...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821#
-
Source.
pro-saturation
RealClimate: A Saturated Gassy Argument
RealClimate: A guest post by Spencer Weart, in collaboration with Raymond T. Pierrehumbert The simple physics explanations for the greenhouse effect that you find on the internet are often quite wrong. These well-meaning errors can promote confusion about whether humanity is truly causing global...
anti-saturationIs the CO2 effect saturated?
<p>If the CO2 effect was saturated, adding more CO2 should add no additional greenhouse effect. However, satellite and surface measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths where CO2 absorbs energy. This is empirical proof that the CO2 effect is not saturated.</p>
Basically the pro-saturation argument is that there is little additional warming in regions that are already saturated, and then offers evidence of temperature change. Noting that most of the temperature change occurs in dryer regions where there is less of an effect of other greenhouse gases. This does raise the temperature worldwide.
The anti-saturation argument is that there is more room for saturation higher in the atmosphere where the air is thinner, and all areas should be seeing more warming. Then offers no evidence correlated to the temperature change, and calls anyone who disagrees a whack-job.
And this is the problem that I have with the debate.
Feedback effects
Wikipedia article
Some observed and potential effects of global warming are positive feedbacks, which contribute directly to further global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report states that "Anthropogenic warming could lead to some effects that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change."
Basically, anything with regard to whether the net effect of feedbacks is positive or negative, is pure speculation.
-
The ancient Greeks had a decent approximation for the circumference, and any sailors who thought their mates fell off the edge would have been proven wrong as soon as they came back.
I read a book a few years ago about Greek philosophy. One part of it relates a philosopher's trip up to the Arctic Circle. The purpose of the trip was to record the Sun's angle at noon at various locations along the way (that there would be a difference was already known at that point).
It's an interesting read:
-
I read a book a few years ago about Greek philosophy. One part of it relates a philosopher's trip up to the Arctic Circle. The purpose of the trip was to record the Sun's angle at noon at various locations along the way (that there would be a difference was already known at that point).
Which just makes the world a convex disc.
-
Basically the pro-saturation argument is that there is little additional warming in regions that are already saturated, and then offers evidence of temperature change. Noting that most of the temperature change occurs in dryer regions where there is less of an effect of other greenhouse gases. This does raise the temperature worldwide.
Even the alarmiest alarmists know that there's a log relationship between increased CO2 and its direct warming effect. They've speculated that it will cause a runaway process with water vapor that will cause us all to be prostitutes and fight over water.
I may have hyperbolized a little at the end there.
-
did you read the anti-saturation articles.
It was very much, "You can throw this in your friend's face, and embarrass them.... and lose friends.... and have a spiteful life like mine...."
But insisted that, oh no, we're no where near saturation point, the atmosphere-space line can expand indefinitely.
It's like the alarmists don't realize that the idea is ridiculous as claiming the entire earth flooded, because water grows on trees.
Well, it does.... but you get my point.
If people insist on laughing at people who believe in a world-wide flood, yet not laugh at people who believe that we can have inordinate amounts of CO2 and earth can do nothing about it, then I have a hard time calling this science.
-
did you read the anti-saturation articles.
I did not. I'm familiar with the concept and not trolling you like @darkmatter was.
-
fair enough...
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/radiativeff.htmpro-saturation
RealClimate: A Saturated Gassy Argument
RealClimate: A guest post by Spencer Weart, in collaboration with Raymond T. Pierrehumbert The simple physics explanations for the greenhouse effect that you find on the internet are often quite wrong. These well-meaning errors can promote confusion about whether humanity is truly causing global...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htmanti-saturation
See, that's not so hard - now we don't have to have a debate where 3 people re-hash poor media translations of scientific studies.
Downside is that I can't get the SJSU page to load, it crashes my chrome tab every time because of a java plugin I think, so i cant see the charts. But from the text it looks like they've merely come up with some theories about saturation and then charted what they expected to happen. Nowhere did I see anything matching it to an actual experiment or real world measures. But that could just be my lack of a java plugin.And the final 2 paragraphs of that thing might as well be a joke lol.
The anti-saturation argument is that there is more room for saturation higher in the atmosphere where the air is thinner, and all areas should be seeing more warming. Then offers no evidence correlated to the temperature change, and calls anyone who disagrees a whack-job.
However, I haven't yet found the part where the skepticalscience page called anyone a whack-job. Even in the "basic" section. Did you read the "Advanced" version of the explanation. Because it deals more with actual experiments than just trying to explain the concept in layperson terms (which is not often going to pass a test wanting real experimental evidence).
-
However, I haven't yet found the part where the skepticalscience page called anyone a whack-job
It was the realclimate one.
Then you can heave a sigh, and wonder how much different the world would be today if these arguments were understood in the 1920’s
-
it's humorous because I was never a big global warming proponent until the anti-global-warming loonies started showering me with conjecture, terribly cherry-picked data trying to prove that one year of increase means 50 years of decrease are meaningless, and other horrible science. Just like how Al Gore turns me off to it by cherry-picking his own dataset to try to boost his money-making carbon credit companies.
It's the anti-global-warming people that are currently winning though, and making me believe global warming science.
-
It was the realclimate one.
yeah the entire last 2 paragraphs of realclimate are as bad as the SJSU one.
-
However, I haven't yet found the part where the skepticalscience page called anyone a whack-job.
I'm sure there are pages there that don't. But here's one:
Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.
It's right in the title:
Denier predictions vs IPCC projections
It's the anti-global-warming people that are currently winning though, and making me believe global warming science.
My condolences.
it's humorous because I was never a big global warming proponent until the anti-global-warming loonies started showering me with conjecture, terribly cherry-picked data trying to prove that one year of increase means 50 years of decrease are meaningless, and other horrible science.
I always thought it was an interesting and scary theory, and then I saw exactly the sort of things you're talking about from the alarmists and started looking into stuff and realized that they're trying really hard to keep the grant gravy train going.
-
Denier predictions vs IPCC projections
Careful, strong words like Denier will get you booted from this forum!
-
Well said, blakey.
-
That's my point.
-
-
It's a moot point, since global warming is not going to doom us all in "3 years" or whatever hyperbolic nonsense is posted above.
I'll be glad to see how it turns out in 85 years... I'm feeling pretty confident in higher average global yearly temperatures.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html
By 2100, the average U.S. temperature is projected to increase by about 4°F to 11°F, depending on emissions scenario and climate model.
So now to sit back and wait.
-
By 2100, the average U.S. temperature is projected to increase by about 4°F to 11°F, depending on emissions scenario and climate model.
And then the next ice age starts, and everyone starts running around trying to buy hummers to slow it down.
We will adjust over time.
Like Russia said. "It's looking pretty good for us."
-
However, I haven't yet found the part where the skepticalscience page called anyone a whack-job.
Others have done the equivalent:
Straight Up
In 2009, Rolling Stone named Joe Romm to its list of "100 People Who Are Changing America." Romm is a climate expert, physicist, energy consultant, and former official in the Department of Energy. But it’s his influential blog, one of the "Top Fifteen Green Websites" according to Time magazine,...
-
And then the next ice age starts, and everyone starts running around trying to buy hummers to slow it down.
Yep, more of this. It makes the anti-global-warming crowd look like GENIUSES!
-
I'll be glad to see how it turns out in 85 years... I'm feeling pretty confident in higher average global yearly temperatures.
Depends on what you're using for your average.
I'm hoping for higher than average, because the alternative is worse.By 2100, the average U.S. temperature is projected to increase by about 4°F to 11°F, depending on emissions scenario and climate model.
What was the projection for 2015?
So now to sit back and wait.
Agree, the best policy by far.
-
@darkmatter said:
However, I haven't yet found the part where the skepticalscience page called anyone a whack-job.
Others have done the equivalent:
In 2009, Rolling Stone named Joe Romm to its list of "100 People Who Are Changing America." Romm is a climate expert, physicist, energy consultant, and former official in the Department of Energy. But it’s his influential blog, one of the "Top Fifteen Green Websites" according to Time magazine,...
The problem with all of those books (for BOTH sides) is that they're not designed to actually sway anyones opinion or scientifically prove anything. They're marketed to people that have already made their own decision regardless of any scientific evidence, as a way for them to feel good about having whatever opinion they had. Money is the reason for those books, not science.
That is one thing the internet has been a boon for. You can ALWAYS find something that backs your opinion.What was the projection for 2015?
irrelevant since it's a single year and anyone that's not stupid or blind can see that any given year is a crapshoot on whether it will end up above or below average. Not even mentioning that 2015 isn't over yet....Or do i need to define "trend" for you again?
Set-theoretic definition of natural numbers - Wikipedia
