Trust and Belief in Science vs Conjecture and Philosophy
Re: Trust and Belief in Science vs Conjecture and Philosophy
You started the thread and asked the questions saying you'd like a debate on the subject. I responded in all sincerity, in a calm level-headed rational fashion. Your abusive retort does you no credit.Twiglet wrote:shill
- Xamonas Chegwé
- Bouncer
- Posts: 50939
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
- About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse. - Location: Nottingham UK
- Contact:
Re: Trust and Belief in Science vs Conjecture and Philosophy
Explain this, please? Are you suggesting that farsight is acting as a shill for someone? If so who? And where is your evidence?Twiglet wrote:shill

A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing

Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Trust and Belief in Science vs Conjecture and Philosophy
Some scientific ideas are speculation, and some are hypotheses, and some are theories. Theories generally have empirical proof, tests and/or observations that confirm them.Twiglet wrote:What is it that distinguishes a scientific idea from speculation about how the world works?
Necessary? No. Helpful? Yes. Usually, when we stop questioning we stop thinking about it.Twiglet wrote:
Is it necessary to understand a scientific concept to question it's validity, and if not, why not?
Trust, but verify.Twiglet wrote: Should the general public trust ideas imparted by scientists, such as those on climate change?
It is the responsibility of the person making an assertion or propounding a theory or other idea.Twiglet wrote: Whose responsibility is it to ensure that science which affects the public is understood by the public?
Any answers to those questions is provisional, and remains falsifiable.Twiglet wrote:
It's easy to identify topics that raise these kinds of questions in the most serious way.
E.g. Is humanity causing climate change, to what extent, and to what effect?
or Does smoking cause cancer, or is smoking merely correlated with a higher incidence of cancer?
When you ask that question, you have to specify "by whom?" If someone is coming to the issue fresh, without any knowledge of the subject matter, they should not proceed with any bias and should approach the issue without affording any position any weight. However, if one has shown an idea to have extraordinary evidence for it, like the oblate spheroid shape of the Earth, one need not seriously entertain the notion that it is flat.Twiglet wrote:
I want to leave those questions open as inspiration for discussing this point:
"Everyone has a right to their own opinion". We've all heard that trotted out, and in scientific arguments open to public consumption, it is often used to provide a platform to pit climate scientists against skeptics. There are, after all, two points of view. But should they be accorded equal weight?
It might be either, depending on the person, or both.Twiglet wrote:
Also, should some distinction be made between an "opinion" and a "reaction"? If someone says they don't "believe in climate change", and is asked why, they might well say they saw something on the news where the climate scientist didn't seem very convincing. But is that really an "opinion" or is it simply a **reaction**?
Sometimes. However, there are also those who "believe" certain scientific theories because they are in line with their political views and not because of any real understanding of the underlying science. In fact, that's probably true of most people because most people are quite deficient in science education.Twiglet wrote:
IIt seems to me that those who perpetually advocate the "right to an opinion" are really advocating their right to react, and usually at the expense of their willingness to reason.
Perhaps, but the only alternative is an "opinion aristocracy" where certain privileged individuals are given the right to not have their ideas questioned, or to have them questioned only under defined circumstances or approved procedures.Twiglet wrote:
Perhaps because reason involves some work on their part, whereas anyone can react and form an opinion (which they have every right to) - on that basis. The right to an opinion, and the advocacy of that right was ionstrumental in promoting genuine democracy and scientific advancement, but in terms of what it is now used to justify, I fear it has become little more than an advocates argument for idiocy.
That's the ideal. However, scientists are humans, and they are motivated by all the same motivations that other humans succumb to: greed, pride, ego, desire, and all the rest.Twiglet wrote:
It speaks to the heart of scientific debate. Scientists test their ideas against nature, and where nature finds those ideas wanting, they must be re evaulatated until they fit or be discarded for their irrelevance.
That's an extreme example - they have the right to say they speak Urdu, but if they don't speak it they don't speak it.Twiglet wrote:
The people involved in that work are not generally selected on the basis of their charisma or ability to communicate to a wider audience, and the very nature of the work they do often pushes it far beyond the realms of easy communication. One only has to look PhD level research paper in chemistry or physics to see just how alien.
If someone says to me they are of the opinion they speak Urdu, but they have never heard the language spoken or written it, should I be defending their right to that opinion or calling them out on their extremely obvious idiocy?
Well, part of that is that other groups of people with other agendas use that particular science to advance agendas that do not merely relate to addressing the particular problem demonstrated by the science, but to also achieve other political ends. Further, there is a component, in the environmental movement, of an almost "religious" zeal and an almost (or even actual) Earth-worship which does not merely advance the science, but also their own religious notions of "energy" and "karma" and "chi" and "life forces" and all sorts of other things. So, people wind up lining up behind political positions, and the science and the skepticism are both used as tools. The truth becomes secondary to the result.Twiglet wrote:
I have noticed in the public arena that the areas which the public feels qualified to dispute most are those with a political agenda attached to them. I await the day I hear a layman arguing that semiconductors don't act as transistors because silicon isn't a metal. I have not found anyone who doesn't believe in computers on the basis of that supposition because it's ridiculous. And yet on the much bigger issue of compromising the future survival of our civilization and preservation of biodiversity, the public seems only too willing to have an opinion, despite, on the whole, knowing no more about climate science than semiconductors.
Thoughts?
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Trust and Belief in Science vs Conjecture and Philosophy
Not sure I get why you've called him a shill....Twiglet wrote:shill
- colubridae
- Custom Rank: Rank
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
- About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
- Location: Birmingham art gallery
- Contact:
Re: Trust and Belief in Science vs Conjecture and Philosophy
Xamonas Chegwé wrote:Explain this, please? Are you suggesting that farsight is acting as a shill for someone? If so who? And where is your evidence?Twiglet wrote:shill
Farsight wrote:You started the thread and asked the questions saying you'd like a debate on the subject. I responded in all sincerity, in a calm level-headed rational fashion. Your abusive retort does you no credit.Twiglet wrote:shill
I was struck by the oddity of this quirky 'old world' phrase... Sort of a philosophy teacher's bullshit admonition.mistermack wrote:Colubridae, that's a rather sad habit you've picked up there, it does you no credit.
So I searched for “does you no credit”. I got 671 hits.
In only two of them did the exact phrase “does you no credit” appear.
They are listed above!
Now stats is definitely my weakest subject, and you can call me paranoid, but I think we were talking about evidence.
“amigo, I think you’ve been had”
edit In case anyone accuses me of accusing someone, all I've done is present evidence. Make of it what you will.
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders
- Pappa
- Non-Practicing Anarchist
- Posts: 56488
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
- About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
- Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
- Contact:
Re: Trust and Belief in Science vs Conjecture and Philosophy
colubridae,colubridae wrote:Xamonas Chegwé wrote:Explain this, please? Are you suggesting that farsight is acting as a shill for someone? If so who? And where is your evidence?Twiglet wrote:shillFarsight wrote:You started the thread and asked the questions saying you'd like a debate on the subject. I responded in all sincerity, in a calm level-headed rational fashion. Your abusive retort does you no credit.Twiglet wrote:shillI was struck by the oddity of this quirky 'old world' phrase... Sort of a philosophy teacher's bullshit admonition.mistermack wrote:Colubridae, that's a rather sad habit you've picked up there, it does you no credit.
So I searched for “does you no credit”. I got 671 hits.
In only two of them did the exact phrase “does you no credit” appear.
They are listed above!
Now stats is definitely my weakest subject, and you can call me paranoid, but I think we were talking about evidence.
“amigo, I think you’ve been had”
edit In case anyone accuses me of accusing someone, all I've done is present evidence. Make of it what you will.
I checked the IPs last week when Twiglet brought the matter up and I've just double checked more thoroughly now.
The IPs don't match, the locations don't match and to the best of our knowledge the IPs aren't proxies.
Pappa
For information on ways to help support Rationalia financially, see our funding page.
When the aliens do come, everything we once thought was cool will then make us ashamed.
- colubridae
- Custom Rank: Rank
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
- About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
- Location: Birmingham art gallery
- Contact:
Re: Trust and Belief in Science vs Conjecture and Philosophy
Just to re-iterate
I am not making any accusations....
I just like to point out that farsight and mistermack have already been accused of being sock-puppets, but not by me.
In the whole of the rationalia database the quirky phrase 'does you no credit' appears only twice, once by FS once by MM.
This is not proof they are the same person.
It could well be coincidence. I know what I believe to be the case.
I do think it’s important to bring such strange, fascinating coincidences to everyone’s attention.
Farsight has been accused of being a troll several times now (and on other forums), again not by me.
Incidentally, I don’t belong to any other forums, but I understand that other members do.
If they feel that this strange coincidence should be posted on such other forums that’s fine by me, (just so that members of those forums can make their own decisions on FS and MM.)
Again
This is definitely not an accusation just a quirky piece of ‘fact’....
p.s. another strange coincidence my name is oliver stone
Just kidding
I am not making any accusations....
I just like to point out that farsight and mistermack have already been accused of being sock-puppets, but not by me.
In the whole of the rationalia database the quirky phrase 'does you no credit' appears only twice, once by FS once by MM.
This is not proof they are the same person.
It could well be coincidence. I know what I believe to be the case.
I do think it’s important to bring such strange, fascinating coincidences to everyone’s attention.
Farsight has been accused of being a troll several times now (and on other forums), again not by me.
Incidentally, I don’t belong to any other forums, but I understand that other members do.
If they feel that this strange coincidence should be posted on such other forums that’s fine by me, (just so that members of those forums can make their own decisions on FS and MM.)
Again
This is definitely not an accusation just a quirky piece of ‘fact’....
p.s. another strange coincidence my name is oliver stone

Just kidding
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders
Re: Trust and Belief in Science vs Conjecture and Philosophy
re shills and ad hominem attacks, the nature of the beast:
Extracts follow
When I use the term denial industry, I’m referring to those who are paid to say that manmade global warming isn’t happening. The great majority of people who believe this have not been paid: they have been duped. Reading Climate Cover-Up, you keep stumbling across familiar phrases and concepts, which you can see every day on the comment threads. The book shows that these memes were planted by PR companies and hired experts.
The first case study I’ve posted reveals how a coalition of US coal companies sought to persuade people that the science is uncertain. It listed the two social groups it was trying to reach: “Target 1: Older, less educated males”; “Target 2: Younger, lower-income women” and the methods by which it would reach them. One of its findings was that “members of the public feel more confident expressing opinions on others’ motivations and tactics than they do expressing opinions of scientific issues.”(4)
Remember this, next time you hear people claiming that climate scientists are only in it for the money, or that environmentalists are trying to create a communist world government: these ideas were devised and broadcast by energy companies. The people who inform me, apparently without irony, that “your article is an ad hominem attack, you four-eyed, big-nosed, commie sack of shit” or “you scaremongers will destroy the entire world economy and take us back to the Stone Age” are the unwitting recruits of campaigns they have never heard of.
The second case study reveals how Dr Patrick Michaels, one of a handful of climate change deniers with a qualification in climate science, has been lavishly paid by companies seeking to protect their profits from burning coal(5). As far as I can discover, none of the media outlets who use him as a commentator - including the Guardian - has disclosed this interest at the time of his appearance. Dr Michaels is one of many people commenting on climate change who presents himself as an independent expert while being secretly paid for his services by fossil fuel companies.
The third example shows how a list published by the Heartland Institute (which has been sponsored by Exxon) of 500 scientists “whose research contradicts man-made global warming scares”(6) turns out to be nothing of the kind: as soon as these scientists found out what the institute was saying about them, many angrily demanded that their names be removed. Twenty months later, they are still on the list. The fourth example shows how, during the Bush presidency, White House officials worked with oil companies to remove regulators they didn’t like, and doctor official documents about climate change.
In Climate Cover-Up, in Ross Gelbspan’s books The Heat is On and Boiling Point; in my book Heat and on the websites DeSmogBlog.com and exxonsecrets.org, you can find dozens of such examples. Together they expose a systematic, well-funded campaign to con the public. To judge by the comments you can read on this paper’s website, it has worked.
But people behind these campaigns know that their claims are untrue. One of the biggest was run by the Global Climate Coalition, which represented ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, the American Petroleum Institute and several big motor manufacturers. In 1995 the coalition’s own scientists reported that “the scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.”(7) The coalition hid this finding from the public, and spent millions of dollars seeking to persuade people that the opposite was true.
These people haven’t fooled themselves, but they might have fooled you. Who, among those of you who claim that climate scientists are liars and environmentalists are stooges, has thought it through for himself?
Extracts follow
When I use the term denial industry, I’m referring to those who are paid to say that manmade global warming isn’t happening. The great majority of people who believe this have not been paid: they have been duped. Reading Climate Cover-Up, you keep stumbling across familiar phrases and concepts, which you can see every day on the comment threads. The book shows that these memes were planted by PR companies and hired experts.
The first case study I’ve posted reveals how a coalition of US coal companies sought to persuade people that the science is uncertain. It listed the two social groups it was trying to reach: “Target 1: Older, less educated males”; “Target 2: Younger, lower-income women” and the methods by which it would reach them. One of its findings was that “members of the public feel more confident expressing opinions on others’ motivations and tactics than they do expressing opinions of scientific issues.”(4)
Remember this, next time you hear people claiming that climate scientists are only in it for the money, or that environmentalists are trying to create a communist world government: these ideas were devised and broadcast by energy companies. The people who inform me, apparently without irony, that “your article is an ad hominem attack, you four-eyed, big-nosed, commie sack of shit” or “you scaremongers will destroy the entire world economy and take us back to the Stone Age” are the unwitting recruits of campaigns they have never heard of.
The second case study reveals how Dr Patrick Michaels, one of a handful of climate change deniers with a qualification in climate science, has been lavishly paid by companies seeking to protect their profits from burning coal(5). As far as I can discover, none of the media outlets who use him as a commentator - including the Guardian - has disclosed this interest at the time of his appearance. Dr Michaels is one of many people commenting on climate change who presents himself as an independent expert while being secretly paid for his services by fossil fuel companies.
The third example shows how a list published by the Heartland Institute (which has been sponsored by Exxon) of 500 scientists “whose research contradicts man-made global warming scares”(6) turns out to be nothing of the kind: as soon as these scientists found out what the institute was saying about them, many angrily demanded that their names be removed. Twenty months later, they are still on the list. The fourth example shows how, during the Bush presidency, White House officials worked with oil companies to remove regulators they didn’t like, and doctor official documents about climate change.
In Climate Cover-Up, in Ross Gelbspan’s books The Heat is On and Boiling Point; in my book Heat and on the websites DeSmogBlog.com and exxonsecrets.org, you can find dozens of such examples. Together they expose a systematic, well-funded campaign to con the public. To judge by the comments you can read on this paper’s website, it has worked.
But people behind these campaigns know that their claims are untrue. One of the biggest was run by the Global Climate Coalition, which represented ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, the American Petroleum Institute and several big motor manufacturers. In 1995 the coalition’s own scientists reported that “the scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.”(7) The coalition hid this finding from the public, and spent millions of dollars seeking to persuade people that the opposite was true.
These people haven’t fooled themselves, but they might have fooled you. Who, among those of you who claim that climate scientists are liars and environmentalists are stooges, has thought it through for himself?
Re: Trust and Belief in Science vs Conjecture and Philosophy
Further from here:
Creationists and climate change deniers have this in common: they don’t answer their critics. They make what they say are definitive refutations of the science. When these refutations are shown to be nonsense, they do not seek to defend them. They simply switch to another line of attack. They never retract, never apologise, never explain, just raise the volume, keep moving and hope that people won’t notice the trail of broken claims in their wake.
This means that trying to debate with them is a frustrating and often futile exercise. It takes 30 seconds to make a misleading scientific statement and 30 minutes to refute it. By machine-gunning their opponents with falsehoods, the deniers put scientists in an impossible position: either you seek to answer their claims, which can’t be done in the time available, or you let them pass, in which case the points appear to stand. Many an eminent scientist has come unstuck in these situations. This is why science is conducted in writing, where claims can be tested and sources checked.
The remaining article goes on to detail examples.
Creationists and climate change deniers have this in common: they don’t answer their critics. They make what they say are definitive refutations of the science. When these refutations are shown to be nonsense, they do not seek to defend them. They simply switch to another line of attack. They never retract, never apologise, never explain, just raise the volume, keep moving and hope that people won’t notice the trail of broken claims in their wake.
This means that trying to debate with them is a frustrating and often futile exercise. It takes 30 seconds to make a misleading scientific statement and 30 minutes to refute it. By machine-gunning their opponents with falsehoods, the deniers put scientists in an impossible position: either you seek to answer their claims, which can’t be done in the time available, or you let them pass, in which case the points appear to stand. Many an eminent scientist has come unstuck in these situations. This is why science is conducted in writing, where claims can be tested and sources checked.
The remaining article goes on to detail examples.
- colubridae
- Custom Rank: Rank
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
- About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
- Location: Birmingham art gallery
- Contact:
Re: Trust and Belief in Science vs Conjecture and Philosophy
Twiglet wrote: This means that trying to debate with them is a frustrating and often futile exercise. It takes 30 seconds to make a misleading scientific statement and 30 minutes to refute it. By machine-gunning their opponents with falsehoods, the deniers put scientists in an impossible position: either you seek to answer their claims, which can’t be done in the time available, or you let them pass, in which case the points appear to stand. Many an eminent scientist has come unstuck in these situations. This is why science is conducted in writing, where claims can be tested and sources checked.
(Here here) ^ 10
plus a 30 minute refutation will likely end up being ignored.
leaving the original pseudo-scientific falsehood as the only bit that joe public remembers.
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders
Re: Trust and Belief in Science vs Conjecture and Philosophy
Like yours. Now listen up: I'm not mistermack. I'm John Duffield. I'm me, nobody else.colubridae wrote:...leaving the original pseudo-scientific falsehood as the only bit that joe public remembers.
And twiglet, I'm no shill. By alleging that I am instead of rationally discussing the issue, you just demolished your own argument. It's patent. To see it plain as day, merely change refutations to assertions in your next sentence:Twiglet wrote:...Creationists and climate change deniers have this in common: they don’t answer their critics....
They make what they say are definitive assertions of the science. When these assertions are shown to be nonsense, they do not seek to defend them. They simply switch to another line of attack. They never retract, never apologise, never explain, just raise the volume, keep moving and hope that people won’t notice the trail of broken claims in their wake.
Who does that describe? Why Twiglet, that's you.
-
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 4:53 pm
- Contact:
Re: Trust and Belief in Science vs Conjecture and Philosophy
In one of your threads I have asked you to defend your interpretation of Minkowski. I am sure you will provide a good example and support your claim with a more detailed discussion of Minkowski's work.Farsight wrote:They make what they say are definitive assertions of the science. When these assertions are shown to be nonsense, they do not seek to defend them. They simply switch to another line of attack. They never retract, never apologise, never explain, just raise the volume, keep moving and hope that people won’t notice the trail of broken claims in their wake.
Re: Trust and Belief in Science vs Conjecture and Philosophy
Noted. I've given a response. You may not be satisfied by it. Please can we discuss it on the appropriate thread.
-
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 4:53 pm
- Contact:
Re: Trust and Belief in Science vs Conjecture and Philosophy
If you wish, though I believe that it is relevant to discuss this here, because it serves as a concrete example of the behavior you discussed. What does it mean for one to defend a claim? You seem to suggest that in order to be scientific, one should retract, explain, or apologize for a point on which one is questioned. I'm just wondering the limits of this.Farsight wrote:Noted. I've given a response. You may not be satisfied by it. Please can we discuss it on the appropriate thread.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests