Objective Fact vs Pseudo-Science.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, this is an off-shoot of my "take" on Freedom of Speech. In that "take" a very interesting debate arose about Freedom of Speech. Something I had not considered. @Pamina brought up a point about Freedom of Speech. Something that has entered our public discourse slowly over the last few years are these views of pseudo-science, superstition, "fake news", and outright lies. I guess I was so into the Freedom of Speech as a right, I kind of forgot that there are some beliefs that could be considered dangerous. Right here at GaG, we have a number of people who believe the human race is being invaded by lizard human hybrids that come from another planet or something. Maybe one of the er. . .members of the group can stop by and explain everything. We have people who believe in a flat earth. I have a guy who works for me who firmly believes in it. I have had a long drawn out discussion with this guy. He is brilliant, outside of that fruitcake belief. And I have told him he needs to keep those beliefs to himself at the workplace.

Yeah for some reason all other objects in space are round. But the earth is flat.

But then we can move from that belief and go to Global Warming. And the thing that is hilarious is that climate change deniers mock people who believe in a flat earth, when there is only a strand of hair difference between the two. Both groups deny the scientific evidence right in front of them. Both groups ignore the opinion of the vast majority of the expertise in their respective fields. Both groups claims there is a political agenda behind the scientific evidence.

Before our debates used to be about an objective set of facts and about the different ways those facts can be interpreted. But that is no longer true. Now, we don't even agree to what is factual. A person's opinion is fact now. A person who has charisma, who is well spoken, becomes the source for expertise about subjects he knows nothing about.

It looks like our public discourse is getting worse and worse. How do you debate someone who claims you are a lizard human alien from another planet, bent on destroying the human race by electing Hillary Clinton?

If you are not a follower of Trump, then you are apart of the Lizard Human hybrid conspiracy.

Then there is religion. I am a religious person. Probably more spiritual than into organized religion, though I do attend a Lutheran Church. I have always had a respect for science and I see no reason to doubt science objectivity. I just know that science can never tell me where I come from or what I am here for. It cannot give me purpose. So I use science for what it is good at. Which is telling me how to navigate my world and my environment. I know a few scientists, I don't think I know a single one that is not religious. But I don't think that religion belongs in discussions about scientific discoveries. And I don't think my friends support that either. Jesus never had an issue with confusing the two in the Bible. I don't see why we should have a problem.

So my question is, has it finally happened? Are we in the new "Dark Ages" now? Is this what our public discourse has become? How in the world do we have a conversation, political or otherwise when the foundation or framework is warped beyond all recognition? There is simply no common set of facts, principles or ideals that we can even agree upon.

[Redf00q]

All this pseudo-science was reinvigorated by Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny. And also with the spread of freedom of speech and internet voiced opinions, mixed with trolling posts and really gulible people, this trend started around year 2000 when someone posted a mermaid look a like photo of a mermaid on a beach purposely built by an artist for a fantasy expo thing, but the photographer put it on his blog and said, "real mermaid body found on the coast line" The internet blasted saying "omg that is so true i knew they where real. " And since all the bloggers are making money from you viewing their website via ads or buying their merch, more and more stories like this appeared. And the gullible people, turned hoaxes and fake news into real theory.

As for the flat earth, that was the actual status our of knowledge about this planet, few hundreds of years back, the same bloggers started posting polls online, and the gullible people made them money.

I think is stupid, for an adult person with family, kids, wife successful career and the right to vote to think that unicorns that fart rainbows exist, and Santa Claus is real when he already knows its not. It's all a money grabbing scheme on the backs of the people believing this shit.

And the good part? is all legal.

[Redf00q]

Side note, there was a flat earth theorist convention i think this year, they all gathered talked about it, and yet most of them said, " we are a bunch of nuts, we know this is ain't real, but is fun being part of something where people interact and believe in the same thing". so... evolution happens, things that look outlandish now might be true in the future, but things that already been proven to be wrong irrevocably countless of times, and they will always be wrong if you put them to test, won't be true in the future, unless we all get a lobotomy.

[RolandCuthbert]

Dude, I have a guy who works for me.

He is a flat earther!

[Redf00q]

@RolandCuthbert and i bet he is a nice guy, as my 2 flat earther/conspiracy theorists friends are. Not sure what you meant by saying you have a flat earther working for you.

[Redf00q]

I have a couple of friends that are flat earthers, their a fun bunch as people, but i wouldn't trust them with something important. And their pretty gullible, always laugh with them about it. One is even a conspiracy theorist loves that shit, can go all day about it, and we have great discussions about his topics! However the topic was what we think about this whole thing, and i just said is all a exploitation of people who believes almost anything they read. Im a bit confused about your reply. XD

[RolandCuthbert]

He is great! I always call him the dumbest genius that I know. But I told him, if he spouts that conspiracy nonsense at the workplace, he won't have a job. I can't have stuff like that getting back to me.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh, I mean I have a guy on my staff who believes in a flat earth.

[Redf00q]

@RolandCuthbert you made me smile with that tag line! xD Thank you for the input sir!

[RolandCuthbert]

Thank you also!

[SirRexington]

Most people who work in a scientific capacity don't believe in God. Science can tell you where you came from and science is the building block for reason and logic. I don't need God to give me purpose or morals.

Objective facts are fundamental sciences that are observed and confirmed to be true. a lot of people think that "statistics" mean the same thing. And while it should, it doesn't mean they do. Many studies are biased and the outcome has been predetermined. Others are flawed and don't give the whole picture.

Look at arguments about gun rights and immigration. There are so many conflicting studies that disprove the others. I happen to believe that rationally, gun control is a good strategy and that there is ample evidence to support that claim. I also believe illegal immigration is usually bad as it has been observed that it is. Of course statistics debunk this but then other statistics debunk those...

Some things we simply don't know. But other things, other things we do know. And denying them makes you ignorant.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, I have never met a scientist who did not believe in God. I dated one for several years. A microbiologist.

I agree that many studies are flawed. But there are studies that have been vetted. There are things accepted by the vast majority of scientists in a given field. I am an expert of a kind in my own field. And I understand what is generally accepted as fact among other experts.

And I am not talking about things that can be disputed. Like immigration or gun control. I am talking about something like vaccines. Many in the American public are starting to doubt vaccines actually work.

fortune.com/.../

Its like history of vaccinations was wiped from the history books.

[SirRexington]

Yes, and a lot of people have been using "science" to further their political agenda in either direction. We need to differentiate between what is fact and what is false. We have seem to lost that ability as the internet gets more powerful. I would think access to information would be good, apparently it's being used to manipulate the public.

[RolandCuthbert]

That's why I call this the New Dark Ages. It is another age of mythology, superstition, and insanity. On the whole we are beginning to think there is no such thing as objective fact. And that what is fact is determined by who screams the loudest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld_smuYyM24

[SirRexington]

Gay frogs are coming out of their water, they hate you, they hate your children! God damn them, damn them all to hell!

Sorry, I usually don't get this emotional.

[RolandCuthbert]

Yeah, it starts out as screaming freakish howling madness. . . then somehow it gets worse.

[Pamina]

I think this one nails it:
"A person who has charisma, who is well spoken, becomes the source for expertise about subjects he knows nothing about."

We see so many of these types currently. They're the most popular public figures.

By the way, while it's apparently true that most scientists aren't Atheists, I think it's important to note that the percentage of Atheists among scientists is about 10 times higher than among the general public (40% vs. 4%).
www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

That's way too big of a difference to be random. There's a reason why Atheism is so much more common among scientists than among non-scientists.

[RolandCuthbert]

Yes. I don't have an issue with atheism. And I have to agree that many religious folks are afraid of science. Because they don't understand it. They think they lack the intellect to grasp scientific concepts.

But now that I think about it. . . it also creates another fear. The fear of losing ignorance. Ignorance can be very comforting. It can feel very safe and familiar. I have known people like this in my community. The death of ignorance for them meant the death of the familiar, of the past, of the old way of doing things. And people see that as a threat to their way of life.

Hence something like Alex Jones.

[Pamina]

I knew you didn't have an issue with Atheism, I just thought this would be interesting to share.

Yes, as they say - ignorance is bliss. It kinda makes sense. But it's also highly dangerous because people like Alex Jones, or worse, Donald Trump, will and do take advantage of it.

[RolandCuthbert]

Very true.

I would also add that religious folk fear that science will one day disprove the existence of God.

Something that is totally ridiculous.

But they fear it anyway. And I don't really understand why.

[Pamina]

Understandably. A person who went to chiropractors for years, spent a lot of money on it, will (at least subconsciously) rather deny the hard science facts than admit to having fallen for quackery all these years. With someone's religious beliefs that effect will be even more intense.

[RolandCuthbert]

But your view is that religion can be or should be disproven.

I don't share that view. But I do agree that ignorance and fear drive people away from science.

[Pamina]

No. My view is that *anything* that can be disproven, should be disproven. I'm not saying that everything actually can be disproven with our current resources.

[ladsin]

Hmm. I can't speak for all "climate change" deniers, but as my father could be considered one I'll just use him as a reference. His argument is not that the world is not getting hotter... weird wording... His argument is that the world is in fact getting warmer, he just does not accept the purported cause or severity. He justifies this belief by an appeal to research that appears to discount the "narrative". Secondly, he disagrees with the method of fixing it. He'll presume for the sake of argument that the reasoning and evidence points to global warming, but he does not think that many of the proposed "fixes" are beneficial. He instead thinks that "we" (private entrepreneurs) should fund R&D/ production on our own. Government, in his opinion, does not have a right to simply tax certain products into oblivion so that more ozone friendly products can be competitive.

That said I'm pretty sure the lizard people are from the egg moon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnEzfCCKebw

That said I don't see any real reason to presume we're in a new Dark Age, I think you'd have to be very selective in your comparison to see that. The "Dark Ages" are hard to define and the term has actually fallen out of repute in the historian community, but I think it still has some valuable usage. Rome was the technological, military, and cultural powerhouse of it's age spanning most all of the known world at the time. Philosophy as a whole flourished under it's reign and it took us nearly a millenia just to recover what we lost during the dark ages. There are a few hypotheses about why the RE fell, but I think the simplest and best evidenced hypothesis is that the Roman Empire had just survived a 50 year civil war when their feduciary economy collapsed. Then, if that weren't enough the Emperor's were either being assassinated or dying before being able to reign in control. For analogy, imagine if instead of having a 4 year civil war (as we did in the US) we had a 50 year one, then right afterwards we had a depression worse than the great depression coupled with no central authority due to assassinations.
America would have been dead at the word go. It gets worse though as instead of trying to stimulate the economy and enact policies which would help restore society fascistic policies were enacted like price control of goods. Then, the Christians take over and enact even more fascistic policies. The RE simply couldn't come back-----

[ladsin]

Sorry, I went on a bit of a tangent, but to bring it back. Under the Christians we saw a stagnation of the progress that was achieved under the Early Roman Empire because the Christians really weren't interested in preserving the works of the previous generations. Instead they thought that the study of natural philosophy, science, was actually detrimental and could or would lead to degeneracy or apostasy. Thus the important things were the scriptures and we saw a return to mysticism that.

Yeesh. I'm scatterbrained at the moment. I just got to work and things were rather hectic at the start. Hopefully it wasn't too incoherent. The point was that the biggest loss of the "Dark Ages" was the destruction of pretty much all the progress made in the Early Roman Empire. Especially with the advent of the internet I Do not see that as being a problem today. This may change if we have some coordinated attack that destroys all the information we've built until this point though.

[RolandCuthbert]

Not really sure why "mytake" has elicited this history lesson on the Roman empire. Lasdin, uhm. . . you can just response to my points about pseudo-science vs objective fact vs free speech.

For example;
Is it free speech to claim vaccinations poison your children, thus endangering not only them, but other children who are exposed to them.

www.cidresearch.org/.../the-threat-of-the-anti-vaccine-stance-part-ii

Or do you share the view that such pseudo-science has moved beyond just being an expression of free speech. It has become dangerous to our society.

[ladsin]

As for the Roman Empire stuff. I’m working through some books on it and your usage of the Dark Ages elicited my diatribe which I apologized for.

As for your question here. Yes, people can advocate unscientific ideas. They can’t teach them in science classes and they are still held to civil law. For example if I said I believed drinking bleach was harmless that’s probably fine. If I forced my kids to drink bleach because of that it would not be fine. I would face legal charges for abuse.

I wish people wouldn’t do this, ie indoctrination of short earth theology, but that’s part of living in a free society.

[RolandCuthbert]

The comment was not about being in a free society. The issue, how do we move forward if unscientific nonsense theories are given the same weight as science based objective research?

[ladsin]

They aren’t? Even if they were we still would eventually be forced to rely on science because it works. It’s the same reason that science became so popular in the first place. Science makes cars drive, planes fly, computers... compute.

[RolandCuthbert]

Really? Our debate on climate change is not based upon scientific data. It is based upon hyperbole and political spin. And the point is, that if this becomes the standard for how our debates will be constructed, then where does this end? What next? The debate about vaccinations is looming next. The U. S. vaccination program has saved millions of children from life-threatening diseases. Yet, there are people who claim vaccinations is apart of the liberal government lizard/human hybrid conspiracy to turn people gay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwFQDmqyN2o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-lKvc8N1x8

[ladsin]

How many people think that vaccinations turn their kids gay or give them autism?

[RolandCuthbert]

Alex Jones claimed the government was developing a serum to turn people gay.

He had over ten million people listening to his podcast.

[MlleCake]

Excellent. I notice it too, and in the wider society.

[RolandCuthbert]

We are entering the New Dark Ages. I guess we should strap ourselves in. It is going to be a wild ride.

[MlleCake]

I agree.

[sp33d]

There are no 'subjective facts', there's no need to specify :P

"I have always had a respect for science and I see no reason to doubt science objectivity."
Now you are talking as if you are religious about science. Don't. The clear advantage of sciences is that they can be and have to doubted. On the other hand, one must accept that 'facts' may not agree with their personal opinion.

"Are we in the new "Dark Ages" now?"
Definitely not. You forget that it is a tiny fraction of the people whose opinion gets broadcasted (about the various issues you mentioned) thus leading you to believe that (almost) Everyone thinks the same.

The funny thing about those extremists who claim to 'fight' against corruption and whatnot happen to have extraordinary insight, out of nowhere. What distinguishes them from the religious preachers or 'corrupt governments'? Nothing.

"Now, we don't even agree to what is factual."
As you said, being well-spoken somehow seems to bypass all credibility checks. There are some nuances here.
Firstly, when someone Says they agree doesn't necessarely mean they agree, if you know what I mean.
Secondly, one must be literate to challenge someone else's claims. Example: I claim lack of iron causes weakness and unusual sleepiness. You ask for proof and I quote several research papers. But then you reply 'oh right, bet you haven't even read those'.

A solution is doing one's own research, but that takes a lot of effort. Not everyone is willing to go through with it.

Overall, in my experience, this problem doesn't exist in any science community. This is an indication (at least to me), there needs to be some change in the base education people receive.

[RolandCuthbert]

First, this is the age of alternative facts. Of course, we need to specify. Religious about science? What does that even mean?

There is scientific fact. A ball dropped from a building undergoes a specific acceleration of 9.8 per meters per second squared. Light moves at 299,792,458 meters per second. These are scientific facts. They have been well established and are beyond dispute.

Of course, we are in the new dark ages when flat earth theory is making a comeback, people doubt the seriousness of vaccinations, the lizard human hybrid invasion are discussed openly with no supporting evidence or objective facts to verify.

I am not sure why you posted me. You don't seem to be able to address the points I raised.

[sp33d]

There is no need to distinguish between 'different kind' of facts. The gravitational acceleration is ~9.81 m/s2 for earth, this is a fact. Same as the speed of light in optically less dense environments, estimated in theory and verified by measurement. Of course there is no disputing it. But do you understand why?

Religious in the sense that you invoke the word 'science' and suddenly all your claims are proved. Are you a scientist? Have you ever done research? Why do you 'believe' in science whereas you dismiss flat earth, vaccination conspiracy and all those things?

You seem to enjoy exaggerrating this out of proportion. Is there a romantic appeal to it? How are you any different from the preachers you see on TV? What makes you think this problem is serious just because there are a few groups of people who have fantasies about lizard people? Have these issues ever been raised in any serious newsfeeds? I don't think so.

Rethink what you perceive as facts.

[RolandCuthbert]

"Of course there is no disputing it. But do you understand why?"

That is not addressing my point.

The default IP port for communication via rdp is 3389. Do you believe me? In order to restore a vm on a storage platform that is hypervisor agnostic, you usually have to clone the volume, open the datastore, find the vm and copy it to a usable storage location.

Do you believe me? Or do you go and personally verify what I have told you?

I hire SQL experts, storage professional, s backup specialists. Because in their given field they have the credentials that prove they know what they know or at least they are among the best in their field in terms of knowledge.

So yes, I trust scientists when the majority in their field find consensus, just like I trust technology professionals when they reach consensus for whatever solution I need to find for a client.

Even I am a technologist myself. I can't be an expert on every single piece of tech out there.

[sp33d]

Being an expert in a given field usually means years of experience or, in case of sciences, publishing several papers on some specifics. You don't have to be an expert on all tech to know the basics.

To be fair, I don't even understand why you put a picture of a burn victim in the original post. Is that supposed to sway the reader in some direction?

My biggest question mark still pertains to this alleged Dark Age.
"There is simply no common set of facts, principles or ideals that we can even agree upon."
You can't have absolutely everyone agree on some fundamentals. Laws, for instance, don't even require for you to agree with them. Eve more so, laws are different in different regions, so universally agreeing on them might not be possible.
Predictions that we can make about phenomena in nature don't require for us to agree with them, either. In that sense, agreeing to something is redundant.

Where does that leave Dark Age, then? What is it to begin with?

[RolandCuthbert]

What? Where is the burn victim?

You are asking me literally why I think this is these are the new Dark Ages?

Why are you taking issue with my description of the issue. If I called this the new "Enlightened Age" would you be in agreement with me on everything else stated?

[sp33d]

I'm not concerned about semantics. You chose to call it Dark Age, that's what we'll call it. I'm not denying that a tiny amount of people might really believe all that stuff, but my problem is you exaggerrate by saying things like "is this the new Public discourse.."?

NO! It's a fairy tale shared by a group of fanatics. It's certainly not part of public discourse in Europe.

How is the reader supposed to know it's a lizard person? Looks like a burn victim to me. This isn't an art class, where the title of a picture determines its meaning.

[RolandCuthbert]

The last part of your post should be addressed first. Uhm. . . you are angry over my depiction of a lizard human hybrid? Uhm. . . why don't you post a better depiction and uhm. . . we will go with that one.

Okay?

Now for the first part of your post. I live in America.

And in America, there is this show called "Infowars". 2 million people watch it every week and about 12 million are casual listeners/followers.

And that is only one show out of a sea of thousands.

[sp33d]

Not angry. Confused. You Seem to represent the sensible part of population. But then why would you ever promote what Infowars has to say about hybrids (or their existence). You do realise that Infowars is an entertainment program, right?

You ask whether we have reached Dark Age. To be fair, you merely phrased it as a question, it's clearly a statement.
You also speak of objectivity. I asked you how do you, objectively, perceive TV/radio shows or a group of fanatics to dictate 'the' public discourse?

I'll admit that symptoms of Dark Age appear in our conversation. So what is it that we can't agree on?

Are you a fanatic in disguise? (I hope not)

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh because after numerous debates here about the lizard human hybrid conspiracy, it was time to simply admit that a large part of the population believes in nonsense.

Do you know anything about the reptilian people? ↗

One such discussion. I just played along.

I am not the only one who think that Alex Jones and the like are having a major impact on our politics. I can post all kinds of statistics showing Americans doubting established scientific and medical facts.

[sweetannied]

" How do you debate someone who claims you are a lizard human alien from another planet, bent on destroying the human race by electing Hillary Clinton?"

You don't! Do I really need to spell this out - THEY'RE MESSING WITH YOU! Is this your first day on the interent?
When you're debating people about politics over the internet, especially Hillary vs Trump, how often do you feel like they're actually trying to seek the truth and listen to your points objectively instead of just find ways to poke holes in it as they read it? Now, and be honest with yourself, when you were debating them, how often have you actually listened to them and try to see things through their eyes? How often have you sincerely considered the possibility they are right and you are wrong?
So, in this crazy internet space where everyone is just tying to prove they are right and no one tries to listen to the other side, they decided to make a game out of it. They're not going to convince no one, why not at least troll them?

Those people you were trying to debate with, they're like Tracy Morgan on Sports Shouting. They're just as ineffective as anyone else in convincing other people, but at least they're being awesome about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsnpbOA739o

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh, they are not "messing" with me. This is the actual debate. This is what some people genuinely believe. And it is time to openly confront them. Alex Jones has 2 million weekly listeners and probably about 12 million subscribers. Time to stop ignoring this stuff.

And it is silly to think this begins with trump/clinton. There is a guy who believes in a flat earth, who works for me. There are people out there who doubt the truth about vaccinations. People who believe the government is conspiring to turn them gay.

This is the state of our public discourse. It is silly to deny it now.

www.motherjones.com/.../

The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science
How our brains fool us on climate, creationism, and the vaccine-autism link.

[rjroy3]

"I guess I was so into the Freedom of Speech as a right, I kind of forgot that there are some beliefs that could be considered dangerous"

I think this line is most telling of the deeper issue on this particular topic throughout the post. And that there is an assumption that all these topics being argued have clear criteria for what is truly being argued. Is it?

For example, some beliefs being considered dangerous. Even if those beliefs are dangerous. The argument being made is that because said belief is dangerous that is now justification to abolish freedom of speech as a right. That it is THE solution. So the argument is really about why we "should" abolish freedom of speech, rather than about dangerous ideas or them being a problem and the best way to deal with said ideas.

For Global Warming, the underlying assumption is that Global Warming is directly caused by humans and that we must stop everything we're doing, invest billions of dollars in supporting the Al Gore's of the world who don't have real solutions to solve this issue (I say this, because people who are most on board with Global Warming being catastrophic are pushing for this as the solution). Rather than discussing what is the best solution, the argument is really about their solution is THE solution and you're just a Global Warming denier if you disagree with their solution. Maybe there's another solution. Like innovation. Natural Carbon filters and the like. The assumption seems to be we MUST do what they say, rather than let's brainstorm to come up with the best solution. We can't even get past the argument that their solution is the one and only solution.

This is the case in nearly every major disagreement today. It's a fallacy called "False Dilemma" and a lot of people aren't actually using it maliciously. It's easy to feel pushed into a corner and that options are limited.

[rjroy3]

I'm trying to remember the author, but there's a book discussing the Global Warming solution topic in depth and he brought up some really good points. Like why are we assuming that running out of oil, assuming that will happen, is actually a bad thing and that it would be detrimental? There's an assumption we won't innovate to the next thing where we won't even need oil anymore. Or the Carbon air filter example. The assumption is carbon being emitted into the air is bad, when humans do so naturally. There's no basis for how much carbon is the perfect amount, but further still that the only solution is that we stop all emissions in ways that are just unrealistic. Why wouldn't we just design structures that filter the air naturally? Which is actually being done. Like here: www.yahoo.com/.../...ull-carbon-air-035527784.html

The book was interesting for opening up your mind for solutions and looking at certain false assumptions commonly made.

[rjroy3]

"The Moral Case for Fossil Fuel" by Alex Epstein

[goaded]

Why does your opinion sound a lot like "The nuclear missiles are in the air, but we might be able to find a way to disarm them before they hit, so why worry"?

What do you mean by "running out of oil, assuming that will happen"? It is obviously a finite resource, unless you're willing to wait an effectively infinite time for it to be replenished.

"Crude oil originates from ancient fossilized organic materials, such as zooplankton and algae, which geochemical processes convert into oil.", taking "thousands to millions of years".

[rjroy3]

@goaded

"Why does your opinion sound a lot like "The nuclear missiles are in the air, but we might be able to find a way to disarm them before they hit, so why worry"?"

- Because you missed my point, which is there is more than one solution and the topic should be open up to discuss them. Your example points to my point, which is assuming there's one solution and the argument is being made about "you either agree with MY solution, or you don't care".

"What do you mean by "running out of oil, assuming that will happen"? It is obviously a finite resource, unless you're willing to wait an effectively infinite time for it to be replenished."

"Crude oil originates from ancient fossilized organic materials, such as zooplankton and algae, which geochemical processes convert into oil.", taking "thousands to millions of years"."

- Don't get caught up in semantics. I said "assuming that will happen" as a way to say, for the sake of the argument let's assume these variables are 100% true.

[goaded]

OK, what is an "other" (to reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses) solution to global warming and the associated climate change?

[rjroy3]

@goaded

Twofold. You're looking at it from the perspective of cutting emissions. When we can attack from the other end and filter the emissions being put in the air. I posted a link earlier in the thread of one industry that are developing filters that remove the carbon from the air. That was back in 2015. There are multiple companies working on that as we speak.

We can also transition more to Hydrogen and deal with the separate arguments regarding making that transition.

[goaded]

I think what you are calling "filtering the emissions" is cutting the emissions (they don't get out of the generation plant). So is transitioning to alternate energy sources. Are these solutions free, or do they involve investment?

What do you think Al Gore's One True Solution is, exactly?

[rjroy3]

@goaded

"I think what you are calling "filtering the emissions" is cutting the emissions (they don't get out of the generation plant). So is transitioning to alternate energy sources. Are these solutions free, or do they involve investment?"

- Can't stay long, will be leaving soon.
Referring to filtering the air, not just cutting emissions. They do leave the plant. Every car on the road today has to meet an emissions standard, because of what they emit directly into the air. The new technology is designed to pull that out of the air. Will that require an investment to produce? Obviously, but that's not government funded research at this point in time. People are doing it on their own dime. Once they come up with a working product we won't have to invest tax dollars into it, because the people will buy it on their own. Because enough people give a damn.

"What do you think Al Gore's One True Solution is, exactly?"

- Considering I was teasing about Al gore, I'll let you illuminate me

[rjroy3]

@goaded

Carbon emissions come from a lot more than factories if that's what you were suggesting.

[goaded]

"not government funded research" Of course not, it's better for the government to give incentives so that the market does the research. That's what a carbon tax would do. A greenhouse gas tax would be even better, although it would increase the price of meat, because they produce a *lot* of methane.

[rjroy3]

@goaded

Aside from trying to make the case how a new tax is justified. That still falls under the artificially reducing emissions category. Sidesteps the concept of improving technology, to reduce emissions organically or new technology that counteracts the emissions currently in the air. Just taxing people is kind of just an immoral way to go about it.

[rjroy3]

@goaded

Honest question.

If a device was created tomorrow that could remove the excess carbon emissions from the air, even with all the emissions we and China create. The filters were strong enough to bring the atmosphere to a status quo. Would you be on board with that?

[goaded]

If some new technology would allow greenhouse gasses to be removed from the atmosphere at the same rates, or faster, than we're adding them, of course I'd be in favour. Just like I'd be in favour of an inertialess braking system in cars just before I hit a wall. It doesn't make it likely, or even possible; it's better to take the foot off the gas!

[rjroy3]

@goaded

I don't share your same skepticism on this issue considering there are functioning prototypes at this time.

[goaded]

Are any of them scalable to global effectiveness? And are they more effective than just not creating the gasses in the first place, by using solar or wind power instead?

0.3% of of the light falling on the Sahara and Middle East deserts would meet all of Europe's energy needs (https://www. theguardian. com/environment/2008/jul/23/solarpower. windpower); 20% efficiency panels are common today, so less than 0.06% of the land area would be needed. Transfer of power using HVDC cables can keep energy losses down to around 3% per 1,000km (about 5% from Algiers to London, 1 657 km).

The Middle East could stay rich, if they install such systems before their oil money runs out.

[RolandCuthbert]

@goaded Sorry everyone! I have been so busy.

No, you simply created a strawman and are arguing against it. Which is fine. But please be more honest in your responses, if you do not believe in the science. Just state that.

[goaded]

Am I? I believe the science, but I'm not so sure about the hype, and I think it's easier and cheaper not to pee in the pool than to have an expensive system to remove it afterwards. Anyway...

I didn't read the link given because it involved signing up for Yahoo. I've done that now, and found some other (positive) articles.

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...ioxide-air-cheaply.html
... said they could produce fuel at about $1/litre, which makes it "competitive in California, where low carbon fuel standards to cut pollution from cars and trucks mean high prices.", which is exactly how carbon taxes are supposed to work.

It also says, "An industrial plant, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, could capture a million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, equivalent to emissions by 250,000 cars." ($400+ per car.)

Which is great, except the number of vehicles reached 1bn in 2010 and will hit 2bn in 2035.

[RolandCuthbert]

@goaded Oh shoot! Trying to respond to too many posts!

NO! Not you!

I meant @rjroy3.

I am so sorry brother! Please forgive me!!!

[goaded]

That's OK, it's good to have to justify your position from time to time.

[rjroy3]

@goaded every new vehicle on the road now, since the Obama Administration is required to meet an emission standard on the state inspection. So that's already something we're doing. The basis of your argument is that we need to go even further, which is essentially just doing away with all carbon-based fueled vehicles. That just isn't realistic, because no other fuel other than hydrogen is strong enough to power the world right now

[rjroy3]

What strawman argument was made?

[goaded]

I think my argument throughout has been to reduce the sources of greenhouse gasses (like not peeing...) is more efficient than dealing with them once they're in the atmosphere. Going back to your original opinion, it's not a "False Dilemma", because people have thought through the possibilities already. The example you gave requires a lot of energy to produce the fuel.

The scrubbing technology would necessarily be more efficient at industrial sources of CO2, because that's where the gas is more concentrated. It also requires renewable energy sources in order to be carbon neutral, and that uses up renewable energy that other people could be using. Every time you translate energy from one form to another, there's a loss. A 1% increase in vehicle fuel efficiency would save needing 40, multi-million dollar scrubber plants being built.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh the assumption in the global warming debate that have to follow some plan of action or spend billions. It is just plain silliness. All that is asked for is a discussion using objective scientific data.

Its like arguing business analytics with a backwards c-level.

The data isn't biased. It doesn't have political opinions. It doesn't have feelings.

It is just data. And it does not lie.

[rjroy3]

@goaded forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you. Because this conversation actually started quite a while ago. My understanding was that your proposal is that we essentially cut way back on all forms of carbon fuel sources correct? To limit how much we're doing in the first place in order to save, because it is easier to do that than any other method of handling emissions.

Is that a fair summation of what you're saying?

[rjroy3]

Please be real.

Genuinely. What do you think is called for in regards to the brass tax of dealing with global warming? Yes, they say "let's have a discussion". When it comes down to what they actually suggest we should DO it is inevitably spending tons of tax dollars elsewhere. So saying it will require millions or billions is not a strawman. Play it through

[rjroy3]

side note. When addressing something as a fallacy it kind of requires you to follow up with explanation of exactly what is the fallacy. Not just saying it's a fallacy in passing. Obviously when being pressed you did follow up with a response. I'm just saying for future notice down the road. If you call something a fallacy you have to address it

[RolandCuthbert]

@rjroy3

No, that is absolutely not my assessment. I said that climate change was real. That the scientific data showing the earth is warming is beyond dispute. It was you who went off on some tangent about actions, billions being spent, etc., etc.

[RolandCuthbert]

@rjroy3 Simple nonsense. There was no suggestion about taxing or spending billions anywhere.

In fact, it was supposed to be a financial winner for the U. S. With our superior ability to engineer and manufacture we were supposed to be the supplier to the rest of the world in terms of green technologies. I would remind you in the tech sector, we already invest in green technologies. We would do so anyway independent of government intervention because green technologies are more efficient and cheaper.

For instance, the data centers for the data centers I design, I am given incentives to make sure they run cooler. Cooler processors run faster and more efficiently.

Just look it up.

www.networkworld.com/.../...data-center-green.html

[goaded]

It sounds like a fair summation, although I suspect I should specify "fossil fuel", and not "carbon fuel" which could include the output from your scrubbers.

Of course, burning any kind of fuel puts pollution into the air where it's burned, which is a problem in cities. Electric cars concentrate any pollution at the generation plant, where the output can more easily be scrubbed of harmful polution.

[rjroy3]

to be Frank. This convo between me and goaded was from quite some time ago and the premise of the topic began with me and him. So you're walking into that. We're just missing eachother as far as understanding. It's a lot and I'm just not going to get involved with it further. You're good people tho

[rjroy3]

@goaded okay *nods* so cutting back on fossil fuel usage, rather than dealing with it in other ways.

In part I can say I agree with you. I agree we should use less. Where we mismatch is that I think we should use less, through improving technology like has always taken place overtime. Engine designs get stronger, cleaner, last longer and use less fuel. The bigger better deal as far as production. We also currently have in place as I mentioned before a carbon emissions standard requirement with safety inspections now by law. Everyone has to have a car that meets the standard of lower emissions and if your car doesn't pass the standard, then you can't legally drive you're car. A major car company (I think Volkswagen) relatively recently lost a major law suit because it came out that they falsified the emissions ratings of their vehicles. So all the buyers who thought they were buying a car that was better for the environment was actually defrauded.

That's how serious we take it

[rjroy3]

@goaded I guess my point is... we're already cutting back. We're already requiring emissions standards on vehicles. There are already barriers in place to limit the use of fossil fuels. So when you say we need to cut back I question. Where do we cut back and "how" do we cut back? Because cars (most common example, that's the only reason I go back to it again) are only getting better. Technology is only going to improve.

[goaded]

The trouble is that efficiency improvements, while important, can't keep up with the increase in sheer numbers. The number of cars went up by 200 million (a fifth) between 2010 and 2014, and is expected to be 2 billion by 2035, doubling the number in 2010.

www.drivesurfing.com/.../how-many-cars-are-there-in-the-world

Even if Americans started driving European cars, they'd only reduce fuel usage by about a third, and there's a limit to how efficient a car can get.

[lucidmemoirs]

Her arguments were ridiculous though. 600 years ago, the heliocentric model was a dangerous and discredited idea that would result in damnation and excommunication. Men like Copernicus and Galileo were completely wrong in their understanding of 90% of the physical world as we understand it today, but they had one right idea that would ultimately lead to great new discoveries. You don't progress by embracing the orthodoxies of today to the absolute exclusion of "dangerous ideas". If they are easily discredited, then engage them and discredit them. I would love to see Jenny McCarthy debate a world renowned virologist on the subject of vaccines. Yes, some people would enjoy the sight of her tits and do whatever she says. They would do that regardless of whatever facts and evidence were presented before them. Many more people would watch the debate and see that antivaxers are completely full of shit and have no idea what they are talking about.. Essentially there is no argument to be made against the free exchange and debate of ideas, unless you fear your side is wrong.

[RolandCuthbert]

But they do not "debate" right? A person who believes in a flat earth does not believe in it because there is some evidence that the earth is flat. They do it because of blind faith.

That's the point of the take.

How do we move the conversation back to one based upon factual evidence?

[lucidmemoirs]

That's not true at all. Have you listened to these Neo Flat Earthers? Most of them barely raise the questions of God or intelligent design. They attempt to prove the Earth is flat or disc shaped through scientific process. Some of them actually raise interesting questions that I certainly can't debunk. You probably can't either. That's why I would love see an Earth Scientist or astrophysicist take them on.

[goaded]

@hammeronfire used the simplest challenge to flat earthers (my version is sailing from Australia to the southernmost tip of South America doesn't take you past California).

"i wanna know how if earth is flat how can people be in a boat and go from china to america and go from going as far north as you can to then going south"

[RolandCuthbert]

@lucidmemoirs

No sir, they do not raise any interesting questions. Finding proof the world is round is something a five year old can do.

You can test this simply by calling someone in another state to test length of shadows. You can do this by calling someone in another country to note the difference in time, position of the sun or comparing night/day.

You can wonder why when you look up into the sky, almost every other object is round. You can not the shadow of the earth on the moon from the light of the sun.

No, they don't have any fact or logic as a foundation. They simply question everything they are told without having one single objective scientific fact in their favor.

[RolandCuthbert]

@goaded It is one of the most incredible things to behold. That people doubt establish scientific fact, based upon youtube.

[goaded]

I think it could become a dark ages, but that would require people not standing up to it.

Science can and does tell you where you came from, but it doesn't stop you from finding a purpose in life. Generally speaking, doing the least harm and the most good is accepted as a reasonable approach.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, I don't want to argue about religion/science. I am fully supportive of science. I just am religious also. And I wonder where the line is for people. Some people claim I am superstitious because I believe that an intelligence beyond our understanding created this universe and has a purpose for humankind.

But I do think the New Dark Ages are here.

[goaded]

Tricky, isn't it?

Can't we start by agreeing "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and work from there?

Nobody cares if you behave that way (unless, perhaps, you're a masochist!); I don't mind if you think it's God's will, or just good manners, but I do, if you don't behave that way.

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't see it the way you do. I don't doubt objective facts. I don't doubt that if I take a watermelon and a tennis ball up to the top of a building, that when I release them they will both hit the ground at about the same time.

So I don't doubt Newton's law on acceleration. I don't doubt Newton's law of motion. Or Einstein's brilliance in saying mass is energy divided by the square of the speed of light.

I don't doubt science.

I just know its limits. And that's where I become spiritual.

[Pamina]

You actually do not know its limits. None of us do. The further you go back in time, the lower people thought science's limit was. I think it would be rather arrogant of us to now suddenly think we know its limits. It has crossed one limit after another over the course of history. I'm not saying there is no limit, I'm just saying we don't know where it is.

Being spiritual where science has no explanation is understandable, as long as that spirituality is just like any hypothesis that will be dropped in case of science falsifying it one day.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Pamina Science cannot tell us how the universe came into being.

Nor will it ever.

Pamina, please create another take if you wish to discuss this. I promise to participate. I don't want this to become a tangential conversation. I think it is important for us to talk about superstition vs fact, rather than have another debate about science vs religion.

[Pamina]

You do not know that. I agree that it seems very unlikely and I also have strong doubts it will ever be possible. But do you think 500 years ago anyone thought science would ever be able to detect signals from several billions years ago from the dawn of the univserse? Everyone was as sure as you are now that this would never be possible.

I'm not gonna creat a myTake on this. I said what I needed to say. You don't need to respond to it. Over and out.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Pamina And what do you know?

I can say the same thing about your beliefs.

Truly, this topic belongs in its own take. I created one and we had a discussion about it. Many walked away feeling angry and frustrated.

But I cannot do this topic justice here.

The Continuing War Between Atheism and Religion: Does Everyone Understand the Difference Between Atheists and Theists? ↗

cf.girlsaskguys.com/.../...5-8457-541f369e49d7.jpg

[Pamina]

Wait, what? I'm not the one claiming to know something that cannot be known. That's you. So no, you cannot say the same about my views. I didn't make such a claim. Enough now.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Pamina Pamine create a take, or I will just ignore you.

I will respond to all of your questions and concerns in another take.

[Pamina]

Huh? What are you talking about? I don't give a shit if you ignore me or not, I'm the one who just said "enough now". You're the one who can't stop. You sound confused. Take a deep brreath. It's all good. No need for a new myTake. We're done.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Pamina images.gr-assets.com/.../633374.gif

[Pamina]

Glad we could settle this.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

"There is simply no common set of facts, principles or ideals that we can even agree upon."
Was there ever? I don't think so. That's why we have free speech. It let's everyone voice their differing ideas with most people at least holding the idea that we can disagree and still be civil, but even that has opposition. With such a large population, basically all of English speaking society, you're going to find larger and larger groups that all disagree in the same way and form alternative narratives. Hopefully we still keep it civil, but there's a point where simply too many people refuse to live in the way that another large group of people want to live and they're basically going to need their own space and laws I guess. Either it resolves itself or countries split/people relocate or civil war.

[RolandCuthbert]

Free speech doesn't or should mean there is no such thing as objective fact. And one of the points is that currently, speech isn't civil. You see, its weird. You claim there is no objective fact. Yet you give me a subjective standard of civility. I am sure Alex Jones thinks he is civil. But he doesn't have a single fact to support his drivel.

Nothing is wrong with disagreement. We might disagree about the origin of the universe. But if we are still doubting the world is round, then I am not sure of what framework we could possibly have for a discussion.

And I don't think you are appreciating the dilemma.

"Hey, I think the Stephen Hawking's no boundary proposal, might have an excellent chance to be the theory of creation".

Response

"On the underside of the earth, thar be dragons!"

cdn.images.express.co.uk/.../953382.jpg

[LegateLanius]

Well said. I think we are in both "dark ages" and "enlightenment". In is instance, we have access to the bulk of human knowledge at our fingertips.

[RolandCuthbert]

Yes, we do. And that is why this is so sad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa51vToPacs

[goaded]

And we watch kitten videos!

[StrawberryMan]

But you seem like one of those who follows conventional wisdom where you will just believe the mainstream media, the government, and just want to mock and ridicule unpopular opinion. Throughout history is was often the case that the majority were wrong and the minority were right. You come across as a narrow minded sheep.

[goaded]

Are you suggesting that believing the Earth is flat is just an "unpopular opinion"?

Because that's been disproved for well over 2000 years, even though it wasn't that dumb an idea; chem.tufts.edu/.../relativityofwrong.htm

[RolandCuthbert]

Yes, I am narrow minded because I refuse to believe in lizard human hybrids. Galileo had facts on his side. Your views don't get more credence simply because they are unpopular.

And here is where I have to side with science wholeheartedly. The absolute majority of scientists work towards finding objective truth. Objective truth is found in finding facts that are beyond dispute.

And you fruitcakes who claim the world is flat, that vaccinations that have saved millions are being used for mind control, who claim climate change is not real, who claim lizard humans are invading this world, are out of your minds.

But not because your view is unpopular. But because your views are not supported by factual evidence.

[StrawberryMan]

"But not because your view is unpopular. But because your views are not supported by factual evidence. "

That's just your opinion. Ever considered that you have been brainwashed? First of all, there IS evidence that vaccines are dangerous, just not the kind of evidence that a narrow minded person like you would accept. And yes, there is climate change, but it's not man made. You're just closed minded and very arrogant.

[RolandCuthbert]

Nah, objective fact is not an opinion. Like if you have a lizard human hybrid to show me. That isn't an opinion. I can't unsee a lizard alien dude. So if you have one. . .

produce.

Otherwise, shut up.

i.ytimg.com/vi/P1Zsz7nTgOI/maxresdefault.jpg

[StrawberryMan]

I'm not claiming to believe in human lizard aliens. But it's possible that aliens or some other species exists.

[RolandCuthbert]

And who here doubts that alien life exists elsewhere? The point is it is silly to claim that objective facts support that conclusion. We have no objective facts in the realm of discovering aliens. We have phenomena that are unexplained. If you can't explain it, you can make any any conclusive judgements about it.

Logic demands that.

[StrawberryMan]

Duh, I've never claimed that.

[RolandCuthbert]

Then why post me at all?

[StrawberryMan]

To give my opinion duh

[your_ego]

@StrawberryMan well said, sir.

[RolandCuthbert]

Your opinion on what? That you do not have an opinion?

[Anon-ymous1]

Well, per your final question... the answer is, "Yeah, kinda."

[RolandCuthbert]

Yeah, and it is kinda sad.

[ImSoSquishy]

with the first picture, anyone who gets on a boat to sail out into the sea would've been caught in the current and fall off into space.

[RolandCuthbert]

Flat earthers, I think believe that if you sail far enough, you run into an ice wall.

[Trollfather]

So because something seems outlandish or far-fetched it can't be real?

Try telling people 200 years ago we would be flying in airplanes. They would have laughed at you.

[Waffles731]

200 years ago hot air balloons were a thing

[RolandCuthbert]

Dude, you do not have facts. That is the point. Anyone can make up garbage. But it takes intelligence to show how your views are supported by objective fact.

[your_ego]

Ironically, this post would appear just as ludicrous if you were to replace the images with their mainstream equivalents (a ball in space, aliens from other planets, and a fox news telecast). Go figure.

[RolandCuthbert]

I know it would appear ludicrous to you, right? Because you think that uninformed opinion and objective fact are equivalent.

[hammeronfire]

i wanna know how if earth is flat how can people be in a boat and go from china to america and go from going as far north as you can to then going south. i try to make sense of it but i can't. probably because it doesn't make sense

[Anonymous]

I always remember how Gaileio was jailed for his beliefs only to turn out he was right

[goaded]

Yeah, but he had facts on his side, Alex Jones is just a clown.

[RolandCuthbert]

@goaded Yeah, I am just turning that around. We have doctors saying that vaccinations are of critical importance. And people who claim the government is using it as population control.

They are winning.

www.youtube.com/watch

[Opinion Owner]

They are not winning.

[goaded]

But *not* giving vaccinations is population control; the kids will die!

There was a brief moment about 2000, when it kinda made sense, but that's all been disproved, many times over.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded its time to remind people of what the death toll was like before vaccines and all the various ailments they protect you from. Honestly if a modern doctor came across have the diseases vaccines protect against she or he would be unable to diagnose them as it's been about 60-70 years since they were a common affliction even in the third world.

[RolandCuthbert]

The infowars program is just one of many weird fruitcake nutty conspiracy sites. And because it has made Alex Jones a millionaire we will see many more.

Jones webcast gets 2 million listeners every week. And there is an estimated 12 million or so who are at least casual followers.

[goaded]

Absolutely! Even if doctor's advice changes over time, it's based on the best knowledge of the time, and that improves.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded info wars is right. I dont like them putting chemicals in the water that turn the fricken frogs gay.
https://youtu.be/9JRLCBb7qK8

[RolandCuthbert]

That is simply brilliant. Who did that?

[Opinion Owner]

https://www.youtube.com/user/placeboing

[RolandCuthbert]

Thanks!

[simoncross]

he was wrong

[ENTP_EMO]

Look at the people in here believing in Alex Jones and one of them claim to be the lizard king. You dismissed the theory because it sounds bizarre.
Kind of like back how we used to think time was constant ay :)

[RolandCuthbert]

Sir, I believe in a round earth, because of the compelling evidence that it is round. I believe that vaccinations work because of the compelling evidence of the Polio Vaccine, the SmallPox vaccine, etc. that saved millions of lives.

And no, I don't believe in lizard human hybrids, because not one of you people have produced one.

And that's scary. Because one of you people could go out and kill someone trying to prove they were a lizard.

And yes, that is absolutely insane.

[Anonymous]

GOD is above the dome no excuses left for atheist
but to lie to themselves

good luck with that
glory to my Lord Jesus Christ above the dome

(rocket hits dome)

[JellyDonutguy96]

Alex Jones is our savior

[RolandCuthbert]

Can you explain the lizard human hybrid theory? I still don't get it. And the last Alex Jones supporter I talked to here refused to explain.

[JellyDonutguy96]

nah sorry pal I've got red eggs

[RolandCuthbert]

Red eggs?

Is that the color of the lizard eggs?

I don't get it.

[JellyDonutguy96]

you heard nothing
move along

[RolandCuthbert]

Come on man, you could explain this whole lizard human hybrid thing. Alex doesn't even explain it. Just blurts out nonsense, screams a lot, and makes a lot of weird sounds.

[Trollfather]

If you really wanted to know, you'd watch the David Icke documentaries. You refused. Why do you want an explanation now?

[RolandCuthbert]

@Trollfather Why do I have to watch his documentaries when one of his acolytes is right here.

You see, you are not that crazy, right. You know your views are so insane, you won't even repeat them.

So if your views are so pathetic, that you can't articulate them, why should anyone give you the time of day?

[Trollfather]

You're so stupid. It's not even an Alex Jones doc. It's DAVID ICKE.

Again you keep asking me about where this stuff comes from, why not WATCH THE VIDEO AND SEE WHERE IT COMES FROM?

Pathetic loser, gtfo.

[Trollfather]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2afuTvUzBQ

What about this? Plato's Cave. It HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ALEX JONES.

WILL YOU WATCH IT? No, because you're a brainwashed snowflake with his head in the sand. Bye.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Trollfather I don't need to repeat what I said. . . but for those Alex Jones supporters reading along. If you are so inarticulate and know so little about what you believe, that you cannot write it out and defend your views by yourself, then why on earth should anyone take you seriously.

Posting a youtube video and saying, "this sums up my beliefs" is beyond pathetic.

[monkeynutts]

I am the lizard king. I can do anything.

[RolandCuthbert]

You are just playing with me. There are people here who actually believe in the lizard human hybrid invasion.

[monkeynutts]

Yeah I'm a real shitstirer.