Page 12 of 52 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 519

Thread: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

  1. #111
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    Why do whales still breath air instead of water? Surely the need to no longer surface for air would be a survival advantage? Certainly it would when humans started hunting whales. Their only vulnerability is when they have to surface to breath?
    Surfacing didn't make them vulnerable until man learned to hunt whales. Kind of tough to expect them to evolve gills in five or ten thousand years.

  2. #112
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Let's do a falsification test on your hypothesis. Have there been any instances where scientists held a consensus opinion and the consensus opinion was wrong on facts. Why yes, the consensus opinion held that the Ptolemaic system was the accurate model of the heavens. DID THAT CONSENSUS MAKE IT TRUE? No, the consensus has no bearing no the validity of the question.

    You're comment focuses on how knowledge is disseminated, not on the validity of the knowledge. These are two very separate issues.

    I'm surprised that you've heard of Galilieo so I'll pass along this recommendation for you - read his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. He directly challenges your view on how science is conducted. His dialog pits two models of how science is conducted against each other - the scientific method versus the appeal to authority. It's quite an interested read, especially so because of how old the work is and how insightful it is today as so many people still remain clueless about the methods of science.
    Well, congratulations. It took some time but you did eventually get my point. As I said from the beginning, individuals make scientific discoveries; the scientific community determines which discoveries are valid -- unless or until it determines that another discovery is more plausible. And the point is still the same: unless you are yourself a scientist with the training and experience necessary to challenge the accepted wisdom, it is irrational to challenge the accepted wisdom.

    And for the most part, people only do this with respect to global warming, and they do it not because we have millions of brilliant climatologists in this country, but because we have a lot of dimwits who listen to other dimwits who are paid to take a political stance on a scientific question. I mean really, why aren't all of these geniuses challenging the scientists on subatomic physics? Gluons? What a load of crap! Those physicists are just in it for the money!! Yeah, you REALLY expect me to believe that quantum mechanics HOAX?!

    Get real.

  3. #113
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Well, congratulations. It took some time but you did eventually get my point. As I said from the beginning, individuals make scientific discoveries; the scientific community determines which discoveries are valid -- unless or until it determines that another discovery is more plausible. And the point is still the same: unless you are yourself a scientist with the training and experience necessary to challenge the accepted wisdom, it is irrational to challenge the accepted wisdom.
    Your point is still in error. We can verify through experiment that plate tectonics exists and operates. In 1912 Alfred Wegener proposed the initial hypothesis central to plate tectonics science. He was far, far outside the consensus of geophysicists. They rejected his hypothesis. It took nearly 50 years for the battle between the drifters and the fixists to peter out. For the longest period during that time, Wegener was deemed wrong. The reality is that the social consensus was wrong and Wegener's hypothesis was correct. Scientific reality exists apart from the social consensus held by scientists.

    What you tried to pull in your comment was akin to this maneuver:

    Person A: I'm right.
    Person B: You're wrong.
    Person A: I'm right.
    Person B: You're wrong.
    Person A: I'm right.
    Person B: You're wrong.
    Person A: I'm wrong.
    Person B: You're right.
    Person A: Thanks for admitting that I was right.
    Person B: Huh?

    You can't just declare that I finally see your point when a.) I never conceded your point and b.) when you start referencing post-facto conditionals, such as " unless or until it determines that another discovery is more plausible" (which is a red herring that didn't help your argument at all.) You do have balls of steel for trying that gambit though. Quite bold and funny.

    And for the most part, people only do this with respect to global warming
    Yeah, there are no groups opposed to genetically modified food organisms, there are no groups opposed to food irradiation, there are no groups opposed to fluoridation of water, there are no groups opposed to civilian nuclear power generation, there are no groups opposed to drilling in ANWR, there are no groups who oppose the study of intelligence as it intersects race, there are no groups opposed to vaccines, there are no groups opposed to western medicine, there are no groups opposed to finding the cause of homosexuality, there are no groups opposed to cloning:


    . . . Unlike the U.S., which is afflicted by divisiveness and the religious right, Canada is a model country. That was his story, at any rate.

    A few hours later I picked up a newspaper and got a different view. On the op-ed page a scientist was pleading for Canada to repeal its law against cloning human embryos for research. In tolerant, open-minded, diverse and creative Canada therapeutic cloning--defined as creating an in vitro embryo with the same chromosomes as any other individual--is a crime punishable by ten years in prison.

    In the divisive, religiously addled U.S. a similar measure has failed repeatedly to become federal law. (Some states ban therapeutic cloning.)

    U.S. scientists and their supporters tend to assume biomedical research is threatened by know-nothings on religious crusades. But as the Canadian law illustrates, the long-term threat to genetic research comes less from the religious right than from the secular left. Canada's law forbids all sorts of genetic manipulations, many of them currently theoretical. It's a crime, for instance, to alter inheritable genes.

    And the law has provisions the fabled religious right never even talks about. It's a crime to pay a surrogate mother or to make or accept payment for arranging a surrogate. It's a crime to pay egg or sperm donors anything more than "receipted expenses," like taxi fares. Since eggs are used not just in fertility treatments but in research, this prohibition stifles both.

  4. #114
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    What you tried to pull in your comment was akin to this maneuver:
    Sorry, but I wasn't trying to pull any maneuver. You just seem to insist on tilting at strawmen. I said in my very first post that individuals make discoveries. And yet you keep insisting I said something else entirely. I never claimed that a consensus makes something RIGHT. And yet that seems to be what you want me to have said.

    So again, a scientific consensus simply indicates agreement among the scientific community. The point is that it's irrational to conclude that you know better than the vast majority of scientists unless you are yourself a highly accomplished scientist with particular emphasis in the area in question. But in point of fact, there are millions of Americans who have little or no scientific training and who have a very poor understanding of climate science, but who are nevertheless absolutely convinced that that AGW is a hoax. This is irrational, and it's based on politics -- not science.


    Yeah, there are no groups opposed to genetically modified food organisms, there are no groups opposed to food irradiation, there are no groups opposed to fluoridation of water, there are no groups opposed to civilian nuclear power generation, there are no groups opposed to drilling in ANWR, there are no groups who oppose the study of intelligence as it intersects race, there are no groups opposed to vaccines, there are no groups opposed to western medicine, there are no groups opposed to finding the cause of homosexuality, there are no groups opposed to
    Not the same thing. Most of these are objections to the application of science -- not objections to the fundamental science itself. Most of these don't question the benefit from the application -- they worry about possible side effects. Cloning is an ethical issue -- not a scientific issue. No one seriously argues that cloaning can't be done. No one says that cloaning is a hoax. And of course most of these are fringe groups, anwyay. For example, people who oppose fluoridation are generally considered to be pretty kooky; not unlike the kooky notion that AGW is a liberal plot.

    So all-in-all, a bunch of bad analogies. A better analogy would be people who accept that AGW is real, but propose that it's just too expensive to address, or that global warming is actually a *good* thing.

  5. #115
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I never claimed that a consensus makes something RIGHT. And yet that seems to be what you want me to have said.
    Post #51.


    It was the result of a survey sent out to more than 3000 earth scientists: 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming : Deltoid.


    Appeal to Validity of Consensus. Appeal to Authority.


    Post #98:


    . . . it is ultimately a consensus of the scientific community that determines whether a purported discovery is valid or a crock of sh*t.


    You claim "I never claimed that a consensus makes something RIGHT" and here you wrote the exactly what you claim you had not written.


    Post #107:


    How do you know the heliocentric model is right and not the earthcentric model? Have you performed the calculations yourself? I don't think so. You think you know it's right because you read it in a gradeschool textbook. And why did it get into your gradeschool textbook? It got there because a very large consensus of the scientific community, over many years, decided that Copernicus was right.


    Did you take poker lessons from The Obama? You sure don't know when to fold a bad hand.

    So again, a scientific consensus simply indicates agreement among the scientific community.
    Yes, and the Sun is star in our solar system. An automobile is a car. A television is a boob-tube. Thanks, I think.

  6. #116
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    Intelligence and race are both vague social concepts without specific scientific definitions.
    There are lots of specific scientific definitions for intelligence, and are not vague, but varied - just as with evolution. All three - intelligence, race, and evolutionary theory - are hypothetical constructs.

  7. #117
    Educator DemonMyst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Seattle WA.
    Last Seen
    02-11-13 @ 12:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    727

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    I just want most liberals to refrain from claiming to believe in evolution. I don't like seeing it used as a proxy weapon in the liberal-religious war. Stop misusing a "belief in evolution" and I'll quit rubbing your creationism in your face.
    This might send you into a mental break down.. But.... Did you know the Catholic church accepts evolution??

    As for liberals?? It is pretty certian, that if someone is liberal, they accept evolution.. Even the ones that go to church..

  8. #118
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    If you mean unproven in the same way that the theory of gravity is unproven, and the general and specific theories of relativity are unproven, then yes. However, all 3 are accurate models for the universe.
    1) They are only as accurate as they need to be
    2) Accurate models are a dime a dozen. Highlighting that aspect of a scientific theory does little to distinguish from non scientific theories. My theory that invisible Luke Skywalkers exist on every inch of the planet, and are constantly using the power of the force to draw apples toward themselves is also an accurate model for why apples appear to fall to earth.

  9. #119
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    A scientific theory is one that accurately predicts experimental results. If the model accurately predicts what happens, and what has happened, then it is a good theory.
    No, that's what is called poor science or confirmation bias.

  10. #120
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:46 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,293
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    No, that's what is called poor science or confirmation bias.
    Because you say it is. Your history of being wrong makes me pretty indifferent to that. Since you have not offered anything more than "you are wrong", it's not even a good attempt at debate.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 12 of 52 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •