Climate Change

Discussion in 'Politics' started by David Vanzant, Jan 12, 2023.

  1. Tishomingo

    Tishomingo Members

    Messages:
    5,725
    Likes Received:
    6,199
    If you mean absolute truth or certainty, there is no "ultimate arbiter". Science is a human enterprise, and humans are inherently fallible. Peer review is one way of trying to overcome that limitation. It isn't a sufficient condition for valid and reliable knowledge, but it is an important one. The theory of evolution is generally accepted in scientific circles (outside the creationist community), and it rests on a mountain of evidence from a variety of disciplines. But it remains one pre-Cambrian rabbit away from being discredited. So far, no rabbits!

    But peer review is an important step toward validity and reliability. if you've done the experiments, they're veridical to you. But to convince us skeptics (which you say you aren't interested in doing), peer review would be crucial when you're making claims to extraordinary phenomena.
    Otherwise, you're in the same boat with the folks who claim to have made contacts with UFOs, ghosts, demons and hobgoblins that Carl Sagan talks about in the Demon Haunted World--and they're plenty of them! After that's done, you and other believers in psi might be vindicated, and we skeptics will eat crow. BTW Nature is ordinarily regarded as a reliable source, featuring peer-reviewed research from a variety of scientific disciplines). And those climate scientists you disparage have done their research as well, and published it!
     
  2. ChinaCatSunflower002

    ChinaCatSunflower002 Members

    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    57
    And what of the Scientists who don’t get published in Nature but have ideas that go against the consensus?
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Nov 23, 2023
  3. Tishomingo

    Tishomingo Members

    Messages:
    5,725
    Likes Received:
    6,199
    There is always that problem. And also that excuse. The idea that the scholarly consensus is hopelessly biased is a familiar refrain for those of us familiar with the conversion therapy claims, cold fusion, the Christ myth theory, Intelligent design, the focal infection theory of disease, orgone, and other fringe theories. And maybe they're right. Some "fringe science" has gone mainstream--e.g., plate techtonics and the germ theory of disease. And maybe you're right. You might find a community of followers who agree with you. I'll require more evidence--publication and scholarly reception of that on-going research you're claiming to be doing. If you can't get it peer reviewed, you can at least get it into print and see what the critics say. But often " a yearning to believe or a generalized suspicion of experts is a very potent incentive to accepting pseudo-scientific claims".Michael Friedlander (1998), At the Fringes of Science,  p. 176.

    I should mention that just because a theory is not scientific doesn't mean it's false. There's no scientific proof on which is the better political party or candidate, but some opinions on that matter are more reasonable and evidence-based than others. I don't think a responsible person should stay home on election day just because there's no proof. I'm convinced that lots of things are true that aren't scientific. In the field of history, for example, especially ancient history, it's hard to find clear and convincing contemporaneous evidence about anyone who wasn't a king or prominent notable. Yet I'm willing to operate on the basis of the substantial evidence test--enough evidence to convince most reasonable persons, even though some reasonable persons aren't convinced. This happens to be the standard governing the adoption of most government regulations affecting our lives, health and safety. If you can meet that test, I'll be satisfied.

    I, myself, am a Progressive Christian--willing to bet my life on things that can't be proven. I do have some standards. As previously mentioned, when it comes to claims of miraculous events and supernatural happenings, which are by definition extraordinary, I'm a skeptic. This admittedly leaves out a lot of conventional beliefs set forth in the Apostle's and Nicene creeds--e.g., virgin birth, bodily resurrection, god-man dying for our sins, an afterlife, etc. But I do believe in the existence of God (not necessarily the Dude in the Sky), an historical Jesus, and the teachings attributed to Him in the gospels--peace, love, understanding, and social justice. I've had several long go arounds with Meagain on the existence of an historical Jesus. Basically, he required "mountains of evidence", which we're unlikely ever to uncover for any commoner in an outlying province of the Roman Empire a couple of millennia ago. I think there's substantial evidence for my beliefs to bet on, even though they're way beyond the reach of science. And you could legitimately believe in psi on the same basis, if you have personal evidence that convinces you. Forgive me for not joining you on that one.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2023
    ChinaCatSunflower002 likes this.
  4. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,856
    Likes Received:
    15,032
    Sure, science is never final.
    But relying on your own observations (empiricism) can only get you so far. I observe the sun rising in the east, traveling across the sky, and setting in the west every day. I observe that the sun rotates around the earth.
    However, scientists, according to Nature magazine and CNN, (among other sources) tell me I'm wrong.

    The difference between you and I is that I follow accepted science as I realize I'm not expert enough, nor learned enough to know everything about the world. You claim to be an expert, in relation to die throws.
    I believe in the integrity of science, that's why I tend to accept scientific consensus and not the claims of any one person, scientist, or experimentor. I have nothing against Radin or his experiments nor you or yours, but I do insist they be tested and confirmed by a majority of his and your peers.
    I find that the majority of his peers do not accept his results as valid. You haven't published yet, as far as I know.

    So I'm waiting for confirmation.

    You, on the other hand, claim to have verified his results though your own experiment(s).
    That would be great. I'm all for proving that mind can effect matter as I tend to lean to the Chittamatra, Vijnānavāda, and related schools of thought.
    However, I haven't seen any scientific proof of the ideas encompassed in those schools.

    So again, the difference between you and I is that you have come to the conclusion that main stream science is wrong and you and Radin are right. Mind over matter is confirmed.
    I think it may be possible for mind to influence matter, but am waiting for uncontroversial proof.
    You claim to have proved that mind can influence matter and expect me to accept that as true. It seems you refuse to believe anything else. It's a done deal. Mind can influence matter.

    So who has the open mind and who has reached an unalterable conclusion, even while insisting that science is never final?
     
    ~Zen~, scratcho and Tishomingo like this.
  5. Tishomingo

    Tishomingo Members

    Messages:
    5,725
    Likes Received:
    6,199
    And this, I think, gets to the heart of what I find troubling about Chinacat's paradoxical position. He dismisses the reported, peer reviewed work of climate scientists cuz they all could be corrupt, on the take, brainwshed, co-conspirators to take his car away, etc. And because he can't corroborate their work with his unaided senses. He hasn't noticed any climate change, even though their measurements tell us it's happening. Yet, of course, he accepts psi cuz he thinks he's confirmed it thru multiple, even though most scientists can't confirm the similar work of Radin. We just have to take his word for it. If "science" operated that way, how many of the remarkable scientific discoveries and advances would we have today? He might be right, just as I might be a brain in a jar in some scientist's experiment with simulated reality. But it makes it difficult --impossible, I'd say--to have a discussion with somebody who takes that position. Basically, he's using the uncertainties of science to discredit the enterprise so that he can believe what he want to believe and call it science.

    This reminds me of the similar effort of Q-Anon and certain politicians to discredit government by claiming it's all part of a "Deep State' out to control us. Trained civil servant doing their job are all part of a grand conspiracy, which should be replaced by politically loyal and chosen amateurs. Then, life would be much better.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2023
    MeAgain and scratcho like this.
  6. ChinaCatSunflower002

    ChinaCatSunflower002 Members

    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    57
    I like how you guys are trying to turn the concept of relying on my own integrity and experience and empiricism into some sort of fault of mine rather than just “trusting the experts”. Not gonna work. If Newton had just “trusted the experts” then we may still believe the Aristotelian concept of white light being pure rather than made up of all the colors of the rainbow, which that paradigm had existed for over 1000 years due to the “expertise” of Aristotelian thought before Newton upended it single-handedly by running experiments and testing it out empirically. If Galileo/Copernicus had just trusted the experts then we may still believe in the Ptolemaic Epicycles and that the Earth is at the center of the Solar System.

    In both of those examples, Newton and Galileo went thru quite a bit of conflict trying to make others see the truth. They faced a mountain of resistance. Copernicus didn’t publish til he was on his death bed due to the same reasons.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Nov 24, 2023
  7. ChinaCatSunflower002

    ChinaCatSunflower002 Members

    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    57

    You don’t have to take my word for anything. Don’t believe me if you so chose. The bottom line is I don’t actually care if you believe me or not. I don’t owe anyone anything. If you chose to not believe me then so be it. We are just on an internet forum.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2023
  8. ChinaCatSunflower002

    ChinaCatSunflower002 Members

    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    57
    11/28 of the tests have been a successful replication since the first test in 1996 by a conglomerate total of 4 independent researchers. It has been replicated for the last time. I would be an additional unpublished replication to add to the tally, and it’s possible my own tests on Dice are the most radical, but that indeed is speculation on my part until I research the stats more.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2023
  9. kinulpture

    kinulpture Member

    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    207
    Dunno if theres a difference betw psycho & telekinesis. Probably just 2 terms for the same thing. Extremely easy to get tripped up in semantics. One of many tools they use against us. Psi is quite real. & one could say even that iit may in some cases aid hypnosis. Many humans are hypnotized often. & in some cases this could be permanent. & perhaps even carry over into an hypothetical next life.
     
    ChinaCatSunflower002 likes this.
  10. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,856
    Likes Received:
    15,032
    No one is questioning your integrity, what we are questioning is your empirical data, which we haven't seen, nor has it been evaluated and confirmed by a majority of current scientists.
    Even good guys make mistakes.

    Newton discovered that a prism does not alter a beam of white light other than refracting it. The colors are inherent in the white light, nothing is added or subtracted by the prism.
    Robert Boyle had already discovered the refraction properties of a prism years earlier but failed to comprehend that that was all the prism does to the white light. The refraction of different light wave frequencies produces, or separates the colors.

    This has been confirmed many, many times by many, many people and experiments.
    It did take some time to be accepted as the experiments that Newton performed are, or were at the time, hard to duplicate and many failed to confirm his results.
    But over time and repeated experiments it has held up.

    It may be that Radin is at that point. His experiments are hard to duplicate and at this time are not accepted by a majority of the scientific world.
    That may change over time.
    But at present, he has not convinced the scientific community.


    Same with Galileo.
     
    ChinaCatSunflower002 likes this.
  11. ChinaCatSunflower002

    ChinaCatSunflower002 Members

    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    57
    This is my favorite response you have given.
     
    kinulpture likes this.
  12. kinulpture

    kinulpture Member

    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    207
    I know tesla kinda delved toward what some call mystism. & i think newton maybe did too. No doubt there are other such cases. & certainly leonardo too had a mystical side. So its there & sadly we are so screwed on so many fronts that its hard to know a start. We are lucky that things aint as bad as they could or should be. What actually is holding us together? It aint us doing it. We aint that good or advanced for the monumental efforts so far. Some actual nation has saved our collective bacons many times. More than just one etheric is on the job 24 7. & just think howmuch we were capable of when we had 900 more or less yr lifespans. Then add reincarnation to it. Why were our lifespans lessened.
     
    ChinaCatSunflower002 likes this.
  13. Tishomingo

    Tishomingo Members

    Messages:
    5,725
    Likes Received:
    6,199
    Ah, the old "they laughed at Galileo" defense! Yes, indeedy, there have been reversals in scientific consensus (tectonic plates, etc.) Galileo and Newton won out by providing proving their claims. That's the way science works. "Proof" today,usually means submission to a panel of external peers, but at minimum, getting the work out for public scrutiny. When you do this, you may be part of the club. Your integrity, experience, and empiricism are commendable, but the proof is in the pudding!
     
  14. kinulpture

    kinulpture Member

    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    207
    Tish, you mean to say that you've never seen any phenenomena regarding any of your folks concepts?
     
  15. Tishomingo

    Tishomingo Members

    Messages:
    5,725
    Likes Received:
    6,199
    Not sure exactly what you're asking. By "my folks", do you mean Chickasaws and Native Americans? And what phenomena do you have in mind? My ancestors had their folklore and folk remedies, some of which seem to work. And I have a sense of the uncanny pervading human existence. They might be coincidences, but so much of my life seems scripted. Naturalists would explain this as mere chance. There might be something more to it. Jung was intrigued by what he called "synchronicity" to describe what he saw as "circumstances that appear to be meaningfully related, yet lack a causal connection." Human Verification So yes, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet

    As a betting man, I might take a chance on one of these. In fact, I had a life-changing experience as a result of doing so. I was sitting there minding my own business when a thought entered my head (a passage from scripture, Genesis 1:27) and triggered a cascading set of other thoughts, leaving me a Christian at the end--and giving me an appreciation of other world religions, agnosticism, and atheism. High on my "pink cloud", I was able to intervene in personnel actions in which I thought some of my co-workers were getting screwed--at considerable risk to my own job. I was successful. And it was reminiscent of the scene in Star Wars where Hans Solo turns himself over to the Force. I let it guide me in risky directions which proved to be effective. And I've stuck with it, cuz I like the results.

    Now what was that all about? At the time, I interpreted it as Divine intervention. That's one possibility. Another might be that, faced with a dilemma about how to react to events in the workplace, I experienced stress that dredged up and integrated information stored in my unconscious. Or it might have been a psychotic episode of some kind. Whatever. I fully understand why others might prefer the latter explanation.

    I generally prefer educated bets, grounded in reason, evidence, experience, and yes, intuition. If science can't or won't deal with the matter, I'm on my own, and I rely on my best judgment. But I tend to defer to science when it's available. Because I regard it as the gold standard of human knowledge.

    So if your experiments are veridical to you, that's fine. If you want others to take them seriously, you need to find a way of proving them to others.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2023
    ~Zen~ likes this.
  16. kinulpture

    kinulpture Member

    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    207
    Uhh huh. However aint that a good place to notice any tiny increment of non western stuff? & by western i mean the worldwide duality of east vs west. Which is whats going on rite here. Dude ive lived in south central mo for apprrox 20yrs. Its extremely prejudicial here. Fortunately tho a native sister built a native museum & conference center. This is approx 27mi w of us. Took her several yrs. & lotsa prejudices to overcome. She was originally just a video store. I keep forgetting to ask some locals here. But there was one closer to us awhile ago. They actually had a white buffalo statue out near the hiway. Not sure how i felt abt that. My own native ancestry is grt grt grndmthr pettijean or bettyjohn. Dads maternal2 side. I just found abt her afew yrs ago. Id mistaken thot was dads dads side. On several occasions i had toactuallx fiit with my dad abt phenomena.
     
  17. MollyCuddled

    MollyCuddled Members

    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    725
    Of course any one weather event can’t be conclusively attributed to climate change but we know the probability of extreme weather events increases because of pollution
     
    granite45 and ~Zen~ like this.
  18. kinulpture

    kinulpture Member

    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    207
    Welcome home Molly
     
    6Sailor9 likes this.
  19. ~Zen~

    ~Zen~ California Tripper Administrator

    Messages:
    14,109
    Likes Received:
    19,340
    Thanks for reminding the posters above that the thread is about climate change, not rolling of dice or mind control.
    Let's try to stay on topic
     
    6Sailor9 and MollyCuddled like this.
  20. kinulpture

    kinulpture Member

    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    207
    One can directly influence weather by utilizing ones mind. Ive only done it a few times. & thats only one way it can be done. A report was issued during the johnson administration outlining some of this. Never in known history has weather been like this. So it aint just natural or even knoxn manmade changes. Is something else.
     
    ChinaCatSunflower002 likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice