The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science

I, for one, am damn glad the guests on the Jerry Springer Show can share authority and power with smart people. ;)

Dan, I think you're missing his point. The anti-education, anti-intellectual attitude that is so prevalent in our American society works against the progress of our great nation. We need to celebrate knowledge, not 40yrd dash times.

There's a good book on that topic for those into philosophy. By good I guess I mean insightful. It's not exactly a riveting read as a first philosophy text. The writer assumes that the reader is familiar with the general base of philosphers and their associated theories. When I read the book I spent quite a bit of time in Wiki asking WTF is he talking aboot. :D

The book is "The Closing of the American Mind".

http://www.amazon.com/Closing-American-Mind-Allan-Bloom/dp/0671657151
 
I, for one, am damn glad the guests on the Jerry Springer Show can share authority and power with smart people. ;)

Dan, I think you're missing his point. The anti-education, anti-intellectual attitude that is so prevalent in our American society works against the progress of our great nation. We need to celebrate knowledge, not 40yrd dash times.

Excellent post.

.
 
We have red states to protect us from such a calamity.
-harry

I don't think a 2 party system is helping us.

I used to be a Republican until the religious agenda took hold and now with the republican war on science there is just no way I can support this party.

The democrats are not exactly the sound of reason either.

It is just one billionaire club against the other!

Meanwhile the middle class, environment, and the future economy get raped for short term BS.

One of the most hope-full news stories I have heard lately is the Pew surveys showing the largest growth of independent candidates and VOTERS of the century are starting to emerge.

I think we would be MUCH better off if we had 5 or 6 political groups not just polarized Red and Blue.

At least then perhaps ISSUES would be what people talked and thought about instead of swallowing all of "your parties" BS just to keep the "other side" from winning.


.
 
Dan, I think you're missing his point. The anti-education, anti-intellectual attitude that is so prevalent in our American society works against the progress of our great nation. We need to celebrate knowledge, not 40yrd dash times.

No, I'm not at all. Mediocrity has advantages in societies. This prevents the Really Smart People from establishing the Correct order and forces conflicting factions to exhaust themselves to compromise in the political process, rather than in armed conflicts.

The genius of the Constitution is mediocrity so that most of us can simply live and let live in freedom, without smart people telling us how and what.

How quickly all the Really Smart People forget the French Revolution.
 
Last edited:
Data I believe. Other people's interpretations of it, I don't.
 
Dan, I think you're missing his point. The anti-education, anti-intellectual attitude that is so prevalent in our American society works against the progress of our great nation. We need to celebrate knowledge, not 40yrd dash times.

Absolutely. I was saddened and distraught that the judge didn't allow the comrade workers in the NFL Union to save themselves from the evil Corporate owners. :rolleyes:

<yt>hEu1uOVUBnE</yt>

That embedded YouTube thingy didn't seem to work on Preview... here's the direct link. Don't know if that's the right code to embed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEu1uOVUBnE

And Kent... the comment about Apple being one of the worst offenders on the "green" scale was pointed directly at computers and tech in general. Doesn't matter how much glass and aluminum you put in a computer, it's still an ecological disaster. As far as my opinion on that, I think just about everything man does is an ecological disaster... we kinda fling badness around like monkeys at the zoo throw their poo. Inevitable, and I don't care to fix it.

So using that same tech to push a digital eBook by a guy who's about as green as my thumb so he can make millions, is the ultimate in BS. Let me know when he stops turning on the lights at his mansion at night.

I always thought this was ironic and funny... it's been around a while.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

Just remember, the fix for everything is to elect people who CLAIM to do something while doing the exact opposite, but because they CLAIM to do the right thing, they're untouchable by the media. Perfect politics.
 
Use [ ] instead of < > for the embed.
 
Data I believe. Other people's interpretations of it, I don't.
So if you had to name one person most qualified to interpret the data on climate change, it would be you, then?

In that case, please share with us your interpretation.
-harry
 
So if you had to name one person most qualified to interpret the data on climate change, it would be you, then?

In that case, please share with us your interpretation.
-harry

"We don't KNOW exactly what our effect is on the climate."

QED

(But that statement won't get me funding.)
 
Twenty miles from me is a mockery 'museum' that succeeds in convincing people the universe is only 10,000 years old thanks to our citizens complete lack of understanding in scientific method, reasoning and logic lead skeptical thought.


Have you been? If not I suggest it, and take a true beliver with you, it's more fun that way:rofl:
 
Oh man, I love chatting with believers on that sort of stuff. 'Specially when I quote the Bible and use it against them.
 
The Earth is old and is one part of a complex system. There are variations over time. Thus observable changes. The End.
Ok, but that's just your answer, and while it might be the correct answer, you didn't show how you arrived at it. Please share with us the process by which you came to that conclusion, the data you used as its basis, your rationale.

Your explanation should address questions like:
- why doesn't increasing CO2 concentration have any impact on climate? how did you determine this?
- is it ever possible for humans to change anything about the planet, or does your conclusion apply universally, independent of any further information?
-harry
 
- why doesn't increasing CO2 concentration have any impact on climate?

Let me go digging and see if I can find where someone found CO2 levels rose and fell on a curve behind temperature change. The reason theorised was that the warmer oceans couldn't hold as much in solution.
 
"We don't KNOW exactly what our effect is on the climate."
You didn't show your work either, but "there is insufficient certainty regarding the magnitude of the impact on temperature of a given increase in CO2" is certainly a conclusion that's at least among the set of reasonable ones.
-harry
 
Oh man, I love chatting with believers on that sort of stuff. 'Specially when I quote the Bible and use it against them.

BTW did you know the Grand Canyon was created when water flowed rapidly up from the bottom?:hairraise:
 
Let me go digging and see if I can find where someone found CO2 levels rose and fell on a curve behind temperature change. The reason theorised was that the warmer oceans couldn't hold as much in solution.
Yes, the chart I posted earlier showed historic CO2 levels as measured over the past few hundred thousands years, as determined by ice core samples. A similar chart could plot CO2 and temperature together on the same timeline, and you would see that cyclical variation in temperature leads CO2. You might conclude from this that temperature is a driver of CO2, and you would be absolutely correct, as changes in ocean temperature change the ability of the ocean to hold CO2, so as the oceans warm and cool the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rises and lowers.

If we stop here, there are two mistakes we can make. One is to say "well, that solves it, CO2 doesn't cause warm, warm causes CO2". The mistake here is thinking that causes and effects can only happens in happy pairs of one cause married to one effect, but there's no reason why our brains shouldn't be able to grasp that a cause can have an effect that impacts the cause. In other words, warming encourages rising CO2 concentration, and rising CO2 concentration encourages warming. CO2 is a positive feedback. Before people came along, the warming was driving the CO2 and the CO2 magnified the cycles of warming and cooling.

Today, the CO2 concentration is being jacked up by human contributions, and CO2 is encouraging warming.

The second naive mistake we can make is to say "so, there, it's not CO2 causing warming, the warming is natural and the warming is driving CO2, just like usual". This is a particularly bad mistake, because we're putting enough CO2 into the atmosphere to account for double the observed rise, so we're not exactly at a loss to explain how that CO2 got there. Also, per the chart I posted earlier, the current CO2 level is well above any level seen in any sample taken from the past 800k years.

There's no doubt surrounding the ability of CO2 to encourage warming, that's just basic science, observable in the differences between the Earth and the Moon and between Mercury and Venus. Where there is doubt is in how this complex climate system reacts to rising CO2 and in the relative impacts of the many positive and negative feedbacks.
-harry
 
BTW did you know the Grand Canyon was created when water flowed rapidly up from the bottom?:hairraise:

When I was younger I was told it was from all the water rushing into it quickly from The Flood.
 
It's also where the water came from for the flood.

It's a cool place and well geared towards kids. Now if that's a good thing or not is up to your personal interpretation.
 
It's also where the water came from for the flood.

It's a cool place and well geared towards kids. Now if that's a good thing or not is up to your personal interpretation.

There are plenty of cool places gear toward kids in your area that don't pander to religious fanatics. The AF museum comes out near the top of that list.
 
There are plenty of cool places gear toward kids in your area that don't pander to religious fanatics. The AF museum comes out near the top of that list.

Sounds like you and I agree 100%

When I got home and really started thinking about the Creation Museum it scares me.
 
Actually, the best place to take the kids in your area is Marks Bagels. Best bagels this side of the East Coast. Place is just down the street from the Blue Ash airport (ISZ). We occasionally fly down for bagel runs. Most expensive bagels anywhere.
 
I know the place. Next time you make a bagel run I'll give you a lift. I'm at ISZ (Blue Ash Aviation) almost every day
 
When I got home and really started thinking about the Creation Museum it scares me.
The Creation Museum still has quite a big subset of the population to draw visitors from.

Gallup Poll said:
PRINCETON, NJ -- Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx

Posted without comment because I just realized this isn't in the SZ.
 
There are plenty of cool places gear toward kids in your area that don't pander to religious fanatics. The AF museum comes out near the top of that list.

So anyone who doesn't share your particular, unproven, purely theoretical belief in First Causes is a "religious fanatic"?

Interesting....
 
So anyone who doesn't share your particular, unproven, purely theoretical belief in First Causes is a "religious fanatic"?...
The Creation Museum is based around Young Earthism:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/creation-museum/2011/04/20/monkey-business-2/
... Here at the Creation Museum we have a great new kids workshop called “Monkey Business” that teaches one of the greatest truths a student can ever learn—that people did not come from ape-like creatures! God created humans in His own image on day six of creation about 6,000 years ago! Now that’s a fact that should make us sit up and take notice!...

I don't think "the Earth is more than 6000 years old" is Steingar's "particular" belief, nor is it either "unproven" nor "purely theoretical".
-harry
 
So anyone who doesn't share your particular, unproven, purely theoretical belief in First Causes is a "religious fanatic"?

Interesting....

No, anyone who believes in creationism is, by my own personal definition. Sorry if you don't like it.
 
I stick up for my colleagues, who richly deserve it. Too bad if you don't like it.

The scientist as the eternal skeptic always looking for new answers is a myth. There is a definite "knowledge filter" when it comes to mainstream science. Peer review is an old boys network and woe to any upstart trying to crash the party by "ignoring an axiom".

I have found scientists and engineers to be some of the most dogmatic and incurious people I've ever met.

Think outside the box? No thanks, I haven't made tenure yet. :rolleyes2:
 
The scientist as the eternal skeptic always looking for new answers is a myth. There is a definite "knowledge filter" when it comes to mainstream science. Peer review is an old boys network and woe to any upstart trying to crash the party by "ignoring an axiom".

I have found scientists and engineers to be some of the most dogmatic and incurious people I've ever met.

Think outside the box? No thanks, I haven't made tenure yet. :rolleyes2:

I was just watching something on the Higgs-Boson particle, and that is EXACTLY what the case was. He wasn't part of the "in crowd" and was rejected. Turns out he was probably right, and the crowd that rejected his theory is now trying to find out more about it.

So, why should we fall in lock step with the majority view when there are other examples of this happening?
 
The scientist as the eternal skeptic always looking for new answers is a myth. There is a definite "knowledge filter" when it comes to mainstream science. Peer review is an old boys network and woe to any upstart trying to crash the party by "ignoring an axiom".

My, aren't we bitter.

I have found scientists and engineers to be some of the most dogmatic and incurious people I've ever met.

Can't say the same. Maybe you're at the wrong institution.

Think outside the box? No thanks, I haven't made tenure yet. :rolleyes2:

You should try it some time, P&T committees usually like to see some evidence of original thinking. Sorry guys, I've overturned axioms that made it into textbooks. I know lots of people who review grants and papers, and I'm one of them. Haven't yet seen an old boys network. Peer review isn't perfect (nothing born of people ever is), but it's a long long way from bad. Most of its more vitriolic critics have little to do with mainstream science.
 
... So, why should we fall in lock step with the majority view when there are other examples of this happening?
Well, tell us the process by which you determined your answer. Maybe you've got a better system, and we can all switch to that.

I hear a lot of "follow the money" and "science is imperfect" and "I can imagine several ways to name-call those who say the thing I don't want to be true", but I'm not hearing a lot about the improved way of determining how stuff works that has led to a higher level of understanding among those who know that this is all a scam.

So far I've been able to glean that there's a fellow named Al Gore who wrote a book, and that there is this thing called money that we need to follow (tracking it to those who have less of it), but I'm still at a loss to understand the underlying structure by which all of this truth has been determined in a non-dogmatic and non-axiomatic manner.
-harry
 
BTW did you know the Grand Canyon was created when water flowed rapidly up from the bottom?:hairraise:

That's not what I believe. To borrow another post a I made a while ago:

... U.S. history didn't start until Abraham Washington won a fight with a dinosaur by throwing it across the Mississippi in 1945. It landed on Communism and freed the slaves, but it lived and then John Elway hooked it to a plow and carved out the Grand Canyon.

I was up at the Glen Canyon Dam yesterday. Those plow marks sure are weird-lookin'.
 
Dan, I think you're missing his point. The anti-education, anti-intellectual attitude that is so prevalent in our American society works against the progress of our great nation. We need to celebrate knowledge, not 40yrd dash times.

Yeah, but we need to get some new colleges that aren't so full o' dem damn libruls! :rolleyes:
 
And Kent... the comment about Apple being one of the worst offenders on the "green" scale was pointed directly at computers and tech in general.

No, it was pointed at Apple. :p Tech might not be the most "green" industry in the world, but Apple is one of the greenest companies in that industry. It's also a helluva lot greener than a lot of other industries... Enough that I don't think it deserves any crap. In addition, there's an awful lot of trees not being cut down for paper and mail not going somewhere on a diesel truck because computers exist, so I think that overall the industry is pretty neutral in a "green" sense.

So using that same tech to push a digital eBook by a guy who's about as green as my thumb so he can make millions, is the ultimate in BS.

No argument over the chief hypocrite. :no:
 
Back
Top