Climate Change

Here you go lmaooo…

 

Forget the 7 or 12 years. Those were estimates made some time ago on the basis of models. And nobody reputable said the world will end then-- just that if trends continue, humans will be in a lot worse shape and less able to do much about it. When he weather channel tells us there's an 60% chance of rain tomorrow, probably in the evening, I take heed even tho they're not always right. And yes, news media hype storms. Sometimes they're wrong, but I don't disregard them and say they're just guessing--much less that they're part of some conspiracy to run our lives. Meteorology is far from an exact science, but the best we have to go on. The long term weather forecasts (and climate projections) are less reliable, but I find them useful, as well. Who said "stop driving cars"?

You bring up Covid. I think that was real, cuz I had it twice. No fun, but I'm young. Some folks died from it. I know Covid deniers who did. Vaccines seem to be effective. Are you an anti-vaxer? Polio, smallpox, and over a dozen other diseases were virtually eliminated by them. Quarantines are a drag, but necessary for some diseases. We got through the initial Covid waves without putting people under virtual house arrest, as they seemed to do in Italy and China. And in retrospect, some of the restrictions may have been unnecessary. But better safe than sorry! From a risk-benefit standpoint, I think our governments made sensible decisions.

You said earlier that you went by a "do no harm" ethic. IMO refusing to be vaccinated is irresponsible and risks doing serious harm to others.

 

The same can be said of your pet conspiracy theories. THEY are out to get us and control us with their vaccines, climate theories, etc. OMG, they're comin' for our cars! Our wives and babies will be next! Who are THEY? Dunno, but the My Pillow guy or FOX will tell us soon. Ready to gobble up every new lie Alex Jones, RFK,Jr, DeSantis, the American Petroleum Institute puts out to manipulate you. And you still think you're free??????

 

I never said I don’t think Covid is real. I’ve had Covid. I got it from my vaccinated family member. No I’m not Covid-vaccinated. And no I’m not doing harm to others, especially if the vaccines work. This is the sloppy collectivist mindset I’m referring to.

 

It does seem unusual that an octogenarian quantum physicist would be expressing opinions on climate change, and being so adamant about it. We can only guess why. I can't think of a single scientific theory, from the Big Bang to evolution, that hasn't had dissenters. Occasionally, they win over the majority of scientists in the field, with evidence-based arguments in refereed journals. As you suspect, Clauser has never published anything on climate in a refereed journal. The work he won the Nobel Prize for is fifty years old. I think of one highly respected geneticist, Dr. Francis Collins, now Director of NIH, who is famous for discovering genes associated with various diseases and headed the Human Genome Project. He has become a celebrity in religious circles as an Evangelical Christian who has written a book giving scientific evidence for God and often gives speeches and interviews on that subject. Interesting. But I wouldn't say that's good evidence that God exists cuz Collins thinks so. He's debated Richard Dawkins, an atheist biologist, who has written books criticizing religion. Both are outside their fields, and I take their opinions with a grain of salt. Religion (or irreligion) explains how some scientists (not Collins) reject evolution. Money explains how others rejected a link between tobacco and cancer. Contrarians reflexively challenge consensus views. I know one who is a respected retired expert on wind turbines who is into ancient alien civilizations, pyramids in the Antarctic, etc. I have regular discussions with him, and if I said black, he'd say white. Scientists are human too.

 

Appealing to authority is just that…appealing to authority, whether an “expert” or otherwise. The beautiful thing about Science is you never have to appeal to authority. I never have to appeal to Einstein’s Relativity, as it is merely a theory that has worked quite well, but has its limitations. I never have to subscribe to any particular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics either. There is no “expert” to “appeal” to to begin with in Quantum Mechanics. It’s simply wide open and I can subscribe to any path I desire.

 

Actually, appeal to authority makes sense, if they really are authorities--i.e., experts--and are talking about things within their area of expertise. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to professors if they back up their opinions with facts and seem to be in line with other experts in the field. As for scientific theories, I tend to give credence to those as well, if they seem to provide the most plausible explanation of known facts. The theory of evolution, for example, is more than "only a theory" (as Ronald Reagan put it). It has support from a wide variety of scientific fields, and so far seems to be the most plausible account of how we got here. But it's only one pre-Cambrian rabbit away from being discredited. So far, no rabbits.

 

This is just as bad as any other time of appealing to authority. People should never under any circumstance appeal to authority. Listen to “experts” and learn how to think for yourself and make your own conclusions.

Had Newton appealed to the thousands of years old Aristotelian authority on the nature of Light, then we may still believe that white light isn’t made up of all the combinations of spectral colors.

Had Galileo and Copernicus appealed to authority, we may still have a Ptolemaic view of the solar system.

 

The fallacy of appeal to authority doesn't apply to all appeals to authority.
"Legitimate appeals to authority involve testimony from individuals who are truly experts in their fields and are giving advice that is within the realm of their expertise, such as a real estate lawyer giving advice about real estate law, or a physician giving a patient medical advice...(F)or such an appeal to be justified, certain standards must be met:

• 1. The authority is an expert in the area of knowledge under consideration.
• 2. The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery.
• 3. There is agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration.

Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Authority

Clauser flunks #2&3

 

Sounds like you’re appealing to authority on when you should and shouldn’t appeal to authority. You do you, and I’ll do me.

Look up my New Years Eve Trip Report on the LSD page sometime. If I had appealed to my Lawyer’s advice and copied what she told me to say instead of just disregarding her entirely and telling the Judge my own truth, I may have served some serious jail time instead of getting off with nothing but a weak fee to pay. My Lawyer was stunned both by my actions in the courtroom and the Judge’s reaction to my actions LMAO

 

Sometimes lawyers and doctors are wrong, but I think it generally makes sense to follow their advice or give it serious consideration--since I don't know shit about either field. Sometimes second opinions are wise, if available. I'm not a know it all, certainly not on legal or medical issues. LSD trip, eh. I've never done that, so I guess my consciousness hasn't been "expanded" (or my brain hasn't been fried, as the case may be). Could that explain the differences in our thinking?

 

Michael Faraday had very little schooling experience.

I said listen to “experts” and learn how to think for yourself.

 

Possibly

 

Michael Faraday was a rare exception. Critical thinking is always a good thing, but sometimes it won't get you far. As Meagain suggested, it's not usually feasible to reinvent the wheel.

 

What a dumb take!

As is pointed out explicitly in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” and which I already mentioned, the paradigm flippers usually come from people who are NOT experts in the given field.

 

Yes, we have to start somewhere. Most of what we "know" is due to what we learn from others. We might figure it out on our own, and test received knowledge, but if you think you're mostly an independent thinker, you're deceiving yourself. Logical fallacies are things we might be able to spot on our own, but taking a logic course or reading a book or article on the subject gives it clarity.

On a related matter, I asked you where you got the photo of the beautiful waterfall and propaganda bulletin you shared with us on Post #414. I kinda doubt you produced that yourself.