House of Eratosthenes

Yeah, somebody pushed my button.

When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.

They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.

Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.

I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.
:
Like the Nazis, they are anti-capitalist. They are willing to sacrifice millions of lives of poor people at the altar of radical environmentalism, advocating expensive energy policies that increase poverty. And if there is a historically demonstrable threat to humanity, it is poverty.

I’m not talking about those who think we should be working toward new forms of energy to eventually displace our dependence of fossil fuels. Even I believe in that; after all, fossil fuels are a finite resource.

I’m instead talking about the extremists. They are the ones who are sure they are right, and who are bent on forcing their views upon everyone else. Unfortunately, the extremists are usually the only ones you hear from in the media, because they scream the loudest and make the most outrageous claims.
:
So, as long as they continue to call people like me “deniers”, I will call them “global warming Nazis”.

I didn’t start this fight…they did. Yeah, somebody pushed my button.

Now ordinarily my reaction would be: Two wrongs don’t make a right. But — why do I not like name-calling in the first place. Because it makes simple things needlessly complicated, obscures the truth, obscures common sense, raises the potential of wrong decisions being made. Well, what is the global warming movement anyway: A political movement that is too cowardly even to call itself a political movement. A power push that refuses to call itself a power push. It pretends to be about something called “science” and yet it does not use the scientific method.

People read up on their little factoids and fektoids, then they log on to blogs and paste their snippets into the comments sections. The ones who actually have a name that’s worth something, go on teevee programs and puff up those names through high-pressure, low-mass sensationalism — almost as if they don’t like having a good name — and are constantly scolding whoever else doesn’t go along.

I’m weary of the passive assist, helping them to pretend they have a lock on objectively observed truth. When their sales pitch is, boiled down to its essentials, that we’re in danger of losing control over the global climate if the taxes and regulation are too low, and we can acquire/maintain such control if they are are high. People can sugar-coat it and rhetorically duck and weave, but that’s the core message.

If it were ever about facts and science and “the truth of what’s happening,” and the advocates were doing their advocating with some honesty, we’d be having a conversation about the correlation between greater state power and a milder global climate. But then again, I suppose if Hitler were more honest he would’ve led with the Final Solution.

I’m weary of the passive assist, helping them to pretend they have a lock on objectively observed truth.

Well said. I’m trying to think of a single liberal proposition that doesn’t implicitly contain the assumption that it’s objectively observed truth, and therefore I’m a superior person for believing it….. nope, drawing a blank.

Which, honestly, is one of the main reasons I’m not a liberal — I’m too lazy. It must be just plain exhausting, being so very, very right about everything all the time.
- Severian | 02/21/2014 @ 09:37
Spencer: When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it. They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.

Denialism is not just about the holocaust. There’s also AIDS denialism, and evolution denialism, for instance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

If Spencer wants to complain that the term denigrates his own skeptical views, he might make that argument instead.

mkfreeberg: I not like name-calling in the first place

Good. Glad you repudiate Spencer’s over the top rhetoric.

mkfreeberg: Well, what is the global warming movement anyway: A political movement that is too cowardly even to call itself a political movement.

Of course it’s a political movement, just like the environmental movement, the civil rights movements, the women’s suffrage movement, and the anti-war movement.

mkfreeberg: It pretends to be about something called “science” and yet it does not use the scientific method.

The global warming movement points to science, but is not itself science.
- Zachriel | 02/21/2014 @ 13:16
Just like racial hygiene. Sieg Heil!
- mkfreeberg | 02/21/2014 @ 20:51
Whenever the “science is settled” it isn’t. Science can never be settled, it can only observe, catalog, hypothesize, challenge, and change. The radical environmentalists are where the cold war communists gather since the fall of the Soviet Union they had to change their name.
- Open other end | 02/22/2014 @ 06:09
Hmmmm….The global warming movement points AT “science”, but is not itself science.
- CaptDMO | 02/22/2014 @ 13:12
CaptDMO: The global warming movement points AT “science”, but is not itself science.

Of course. Why would you think otherwise? Do you think each person has to independently verify every observation and methodology used to reach scientific conclusions before acting?
- Zachriel | 02/22/2014 @ 13:21
Points to science, but isn’t itself science?

The word you’re looking for is “pseudoscience”. Or maybe better yet, “quackery”.
- Rich Fader | 02/22/2014 @ 13:47
Rich Fader: Points to science, but isn’t itself science?

You know nothing of medical science or biology. You go to several doctors. They all agree you have cancer, so you come to the understanding that you have cancer. That’s not science, but a valid appeal to authority.
- Zachriel | 02/22/2014 @ 13:53
…an appeal to authority that the person makes, for him- or herself. “A choice between a woman and her doctor.”

The analogy falls apart with global warming, which is that political movement in which the President of the United States makes a State of the Union speech, intoning to us that “the debate is settled!!” How fascinating! So now we’re voting on science. Is that “a valid appeal to authority”?
- mkfreeberg | 02/22/2014 @ 14:58
mkfreeberg: The analogy falls apart with global warming …

It’s not an analogy. You had said, a political movement “pretends to be about something called ‘science’ and yet it does not use the scientific method,” which is a category error. A political movement is not science, though a political movement may point to science to inform its actions.
- Zachriel | 02/22/2014 @ 19:22
You had said, a political movement “pretends to be about something called ‘science’ and yet it does not use the scientific method,” which is a category error.

Incorrect. No error in that statement, at least, none that y’all have successfully identified. I think if all well-informed viewers of all political stripes can agree on ANYTHING, it is that global warming rhetoric is regularly characterized to us as some kind of “science” — the quote from our Commander-in-Chief stands prominently as one example, if we really do need one — and it’s a case of the packaging being greater than the contents.

The ramifications involved in global-warming not using the scientific method, are actually quite significant, given the phony posturing that has been associated with it since Al Gore’s book came out over twenty years ago. Bottom line: If there is indeed a “category error” taking place here, it’s with characterizing the global warming political movement as some kind of “science.”

Just like with the racial hygiene. Sieg Heil!
- mkfreeberg | 02/22/2014 @ 19:39
The funniest part of this whole deal is that, to anyone familiar with the phenomenon of Holocaust Denial, it sure as hell ain’t the anti global warming faction that’s engaging in the dubious behavior. Check out Richard Evans’s Lying About Hitler for a detailed breakdown of how it’s done. Misquoting sources, overlooking contradictory evidence, rationalizing away plain facts…. David Irving could teach the alwarmists a thing or two.
- Severian | 02/22/2014 @ 22:20
mkfreeberg: Incorrect. No error in that statement

Of course there is. You said that a political movement didn’t use the scientific method as if they should. Political movements use political means.

mkfreeberg: The ramifications involved in global-warming not using the scientific method …

That’s a separate different issue. A particular political movement may be confused about the science, either because they misunderstand the science, or because the scientists themselves are confused, but complaining a political movement doesn’t use the scientific method is a category error.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2014 @ 06:39
You said that a political movement didn’t use the scientific method as if they should.

So, every time a climate change advocate says “the science is settled” they must be committing fraud; since the rest of us would be committing “errors” should we ever take them seriously on this.

Well, thanks for clearing that all up.
- mkfreeberg | 02/23/2014 @ 06:46
mkfreeberg: So, every time a climate change advocate says “the science is settled” they must be committing fraud

That wouldn’t follow. They are pointing to their understanding of science. They could be in error or lying, or the scientists could be in error or lying. But your point was that political movements should use the scientific method, and that’s just not a reasonable position.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2014 @ 06:55
It absolutely would and it absolutely does. They call it the “It’s your fault for believing us” technique. Anyway, y’all have now clarified that global warming is political and not scientific. Most folks around here figured that out already. But it’s nice to have it confirmed.
- mkfreeberg | 02/23/2014 @ 07:09
mkfreeberg: It absolutely would and it absolutely does.

Heh. Seriously? You think political movements should run research labs, launch observation satellites, mount scientific expeditions? Do you really think most political operatives also happen to be experts in data-analysis?

mkfreeberg: Anyway, y’all have now clarified that global warming is political and not scientific.

No. The climate change movement is political. Climate science is scientific.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2014 @ 07:13
Seriously? You think political movements should run research labs…

Since I didn’t say any such thing, we can call that an “error.”

Noting that global warming does not use the scientific method, on the other hand, is not an error. Since, ya know, it doesn’t. But it is in the public interest to have it observed that global warming doesn’t use the scientific method since we’ve become accustomed to global warming advocates saying untrue things like “global warming is settled science” and “the scientific debate is settled.”

Those would be “errors,” to be charitable about it.

Not many around here would be too surprised that global warming is a political movement and not a scientific endeavor. But it’s nice to have it confirmed.
- mkfreeberg | 02/23/2014 @ 07:17
mkfreeberg: Since I didn’t say any such thing

You said a political movement “pretends to be about something called ‘science’ and yet it does not use the scientific method.” The climate change movement doesn’t claim to be “science”, but claims to be reliant on scientific findings. That’s why they point to the supposed scientific consensus.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2014 @ 07:21
mkfreeberg: Not many around here would be too surprised that global warming is a political movement and not a scientific endeavor.

We corrected this already. Try to at least pretend to listen to opposing views. The climate change movement is political. Climate science is scientific.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2014 @ 07:21
More particularly, global warming is the observed increase in the heat content of the Earth’s surface area.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2014 @ 07:23
You said a political movement “pretends to be about something called ‘science’…

True.

…and yet it does not use the scientific method.”

True.

So when y’all called out my “error,” in doing so, y’all made an error. Not many around here would be too surprised that global warming is a political movement and not a scientific endeavor. But it’s nice to have it confirmed.
- mkfreeberg | 02/23/2014 @ 07:24
mkfreeberg: a political movement “pretends to be about something called ‘science’…

It’s about science. It is not science.

mkfreeberg: …and yet it does not use the scientific method.”

Of course. That’s because it is about science, not science itself.

If you were just pointing out that the climate change movement is a political movement, not a scientific program, then okay. If you are saying that laypersons who participate in the political process have to be scientists in order to discuss the policy implications of scientific findings, then no.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2014 @ 07:27
It’s about science. It is not science.

Just like racial hygiene. Sieg Heil!

If you are saying that laypersons who participate in the political process have to be scientists in order to discuss the policy implications of scientific findings, then no.

It also doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone that y’all tend to invent things others have said, so y’all can find fictitious “errors.” And it’s nice to have THAT confirmed too.

But my statement was: “It pretends to be about something called “science” and yet it does not use the scientific method.” Y’all’s rebuttal is “It’s about science. It is not science.” My sentence remains correct and my criticism of the movement remains valid. NEXT problem.
- mkfreeberg | 02/23/2014 @ 07:43
mkfreeberg: Just like racial hygiene.

As we said, a political movement could be wrong about the science, or the science could be wrong, or the science may be correct, but the advocated policy wrong.

mkfreeberg: “It pretends to be about something called “science” and yet it does not use the scientific method.”

Something can be about science without being science. You don’t seem to be making a coherent point.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2014 @ 07:51
We’re still glad you repudiate Spencer’s over the top rhetoric.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2014 @ 07:52
As we said, a political movement could be wrong about the science, or the science could be wrong, or the science may be correct, but the advocated policy wrong.

That’s true, but the global warming faux-science situation is not sufficiently complicated to make such a distinction. The “science,” far from “settled,” is tainted.

In one of the e-mails, East Anglia’s Phil Jones, long a power player in the production of these reports, said this about some scientific articles he did not like: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

This is pretty serious stuff, because it, and many similar e-mails, paint a picture of IPCC boffins committing science’s capital crime: Trying to game the peer-reviewed literature, which is akin to editing what goes in the Bible.

In this case, Jones is actually speculating about keeping contrary information out of the IPCC reports by blacklisting certain professional journals.

Is that the model of proper use of the scientific method?
- mkfreeberg | 02/23/2014 @ 07:58
mkfreeberg: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Turns out that the paper was included in the final IPCC report.

mkfreeberg: Is that the model of proper use of the scientific method?

Science rarely matches the sanitized version you think prevails. Scientists have all the usual human foibles, including pride and ambition.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2014 @ 08:06
Morgan,

have you given any more thought to just coding up ObtuseBot 5000? It’d save you a lot of time in the long run. I think we’ve got a pretty good dataset by this point. Just by my rough count, in this thread alone we’ve got:

— three or four Mad Lib “Rebuttals” (scrambling random words in your statements to invent something they’ve scripted a response for);

— six or seven “Professor Scientist of Scientific Sciences, PhD” mini-homilies about what is and isn’t “science,” “scientific method,” or “error;”

— one or two of the classic “we don’t understand that”

— two or three sanctimonious head pats (“we’re so glad you repudiate”)

And so forth.

Remember, these are the same Aspergery retards who routinely cut and paste stuff from 2005 into comments in this, the year of our lord 2014. What do you think the chances are of them saying anything original anytime soon? You’ve got a much better chance of your program attaining sentience than the Cuttlefish. Plus, at least you can shut the fucking thing off every now and again….
- Severian | 02/23/2014 @ 08:10
Turns out that the paper was included in the final IPCC report.

I see. So a deliberate attempt to cherry-pick the evidence is a proper use of the scientific method, as long as it ultimately fails. Thanks for the quality explanation of why the data models suck so much at predicting climate change.

I wonder how many other attempts to “redefine what the peer-review literature is” were made, without evidence of them reaching the public view — that ultimately succeeded. There’s really no way to know, is there.

have you given any more thought to just coding up ObtuseBot 5000?

It would be an interesting CS101 challenge, trouble is it wouldn’t illustrate much. As it is, we’re being given a play-by-play of why exactly it is that climate change “science” fails to achieve predictability and reproducibility, two things real science is supposed to be able to produce. It also shows why the healthcare.gov launch went the way it did: Lefties, confronted with reality that conflicts with their theories, insist that reality must yield.

Again, not surprising to too many people in these parts. But nice to have it confirmed.
- mkfreeberg | 02/23/2014 @ 08:58
True… true…. but what exactly are these retards really illustrating?

When we first had the misfortune of making their acquaintance, they were urging us to look at some temperature .gif, because if we just applied the scientific method and looked at the evidence!!eleventy!!, we’d agree with their politics and become alwarmists.

Now they’re telling us that we shouldn’t apply the scientific method to alwarmism, because it’s politics, not science.

Aside from the spergy cut-n-paste rhetorical technique, how is this any different from any of the seven million other flavors of obviously self-contradictory bullshit the left tries to shove down our throats?

At least some of the diarists at Daily Kos and the like can write well enough to partially conceal their hackery. These dipshits seem to be physically incapable of stringing more than five sentences together, even when they’re obviously worked up about a subject. Other than the harsh reality of life with an Autism Spectrum Disorder, what are they illustrating?
- Severian | 02/23/2014 @ 09:22
I think what’s going on is they have this handbook of pre-canned rebuttals. Example: The damning Phil Jones quote, above, you’re supposed to say “turns out that the paper was included in the final IPCC report” or some such. (It was actually two papers.) To which I say: How many other similar attempts were made to redefine peer review, of which we never learned, and were more successful. “Turns out” there’s no rebuttal to that one. And that’s the real concern here. The problem is with the process overall, not just these two specimens that were the subject of Dr. Jones’ e-mail.

We’ve been here before, a few times, where they have the perfect rebuttal all set to go — if I will just say such-and-such, but oh dear, looks like what I’m saying is something different. So they sort of square-peg-round-hole hand-jam my argument into something else, so they can leap to their perfect rebuttal.

As I’ve said a few times, this is the kind of thinking that made the healthcare.gov launch go the way it did. When your “idea” is envisioning something as identical to some other thing that is actually quite different, you are no longer perceiving reality, but living in fantasy.
- mkfreeberg | 02/23/2014 @ 09:42
I see where you’re coming from. I guess I’m just questioning the utility of another 400+ examples of it.

A Simpsons reference on the internet is the most hackneyed thing ever, but…. I can’t help recalling an episode where Lisa’s science fair project was titled “Is My Brother Smarter Than a Hamster?” The hamster learns not to touch the electrified cupcake, but Bart never does. No matter how mercilessly they’re exposed and ridiculed — and if recent comments are any indication, there’s an appreciative audience for this — the Cuttlefish don’t, won’t, can’t learn anything. They just can’t stop reaching for the cupcake.

At some point, I think we can say that here, at least, the science really is settled: The Zachriel Are Dumber Than a Hamster.
- Severian | 02/23/2014 @ 10:03
mkfreeberg: And that’s the real concern here. The problem is with the process overall, not just these two specimens that were the subject of Dr. Jones’ e-mail.

They didn’t think the paper was worth publishing. So?
- Zachriel | 02/23/2014 @ 10:13
Severian: Now they’re telling us that we shouldn’t apply the scientific method to alwarmism, because it’s politics, not science.

You’re conflating two issues, the scientific issue of anthropogenic climate change, and the policy question of what to do about anthropogenic climate change if it exists.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2014 @ 10:16
You’re conflating two issues, the scientific issue of anthropogenic climate change, and the policy question of what to do about anthropogenic climate change if it exists.

Uh huh. Which is exactly what y’all spent 400-odd posts urging us all to do back when y’all first oozed in here.

Does it hurt being a complete and utter cliche? I’d think it would.
- Severian | 02/23/2014 @ 10:23
Severian: Uh huh.

Agreement?
- Zachriel | 02/23/2014 @ 10:33
Y’all figure it out. You need the practice.
- Severian | 02/23/2014 @ 10:35
Severian: Uh huh.

We’ll take it as agreement, then, unless you say otherwise. The scientific issue of anthropogenic climate change is distinct from the policy question of what to do about anthropogenic climate change if it exists.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2014 @ 11:18
The scientific issue of anthropogenic climate change is distinct from the policy question of what to do about anthropogenic climate change if it exists.

That’s just flat-out not true. There are many proponents of these policy changes who absolutely refuse to accept the possibility that natural phenomena are responsible for measured climate change. They insist on it. Pretty much constantly.
- mkfreeberg | 02/23/2014 @ 13:03
We’ll take it as agreement, then, unless you say otherwise

Of course you will, children. Of course you will.
- Severian | 02/23/2014 @ 13:56
mkfreeberg: There are many proponents of these policy changes who absolutely refuse to accept the possibility that natural phenomena are responsible for measured climate change.

Natural climate change is under intensive study by the climatology community. However, scientists are not always open-minded. That’s normal. If science depended on the perfection of the scientists involved, it would never progress.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2014 @ 15:26
Actually, that is how science progresses. It progresses when its practitioners value the newer reality-based data over & above their cherished theories, for which the newer data poses problems. In that way, science is really nothing more than an extension of any other kind of learning: If you’re ready to learn, the learning might take place, otherwise, no.

Phil Jones, representing the climate-change political movement, aptly demonstrated how not to do this. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Ever since Socrates, all of the scientific realizations that have benefited mankind have been conservative. Liberals are the buzzards on the sidelines, the scavengers. They wait to see who might be doing something that might have some panache, some cachet, and then they figure out how to shamelessly exploit it. Like a hyena or any other sort of desert scavenger. Or a “community organizer.” Or a parasite. Or Barack Obama.
- mkfreeberg | 02/23/2014 @ 16:07
mkfreeberg: Actually, that is how science progresses.

You’re really saying science progresses by the perfection of the scientists involved? Seriously? Do you know any scientists? Have you read about any scientists? None of them, none, are perfect.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2014 @ 16:13
Not perfection of the scientists; but if flaws are found in the experimentation, in the data collected, in the analysis of the data, or in the arrival at the conclusion, that is tainting.

When untainted conclusions are thrown out because they’re not favorable, or the tainted ones are kept because they are favorable, that is not science. You can call it science if you want, but you’d be wrong to do so.

“Do you know any scientists?” What a silly question. Science is not a membership club, it’s a process.
- mkfreeberg | 02/24/2014 @ 07:23
Science is not a membership club, it’s a process.

To liberals, everything is a club. The first thing they do when confronted with a new stimulus is not to evaluate its content, but to run to the internet to see how other people are reacting to it. Not being part of the cool kid club in high school is what made ’em liberals in the first place.

I’m loving the setup, though. “Scientists aren’t perfect!!” No, they’re just flawed people doing the best they can… who somehow still have the intellectual and moral superiority to compare millions of their fellow citizens to neo-Nazis. If present trends continue, they’ll be calling us “global cooling deniers” here in a few years, and when we point out that they’re doing the exact same thing all over again, they’ll shout “we never said scientists were perfect!!”

Convenient, that.
- Severian | 02/24/2014 @ 08:06
PS have you seen Steyn’s latest? He’s counter-suing Michael Mann. It’s gonna be a sad day in the aquarium when that baby goes to trial. I’m pretty sure “climate scientist” is going to replace “used-car salesman” as the gold standard in dishonesty jokes here in a few years.
- Severian | 02/24/2014 @ 08:50
Zachriel: If science depended on the perfection of the scientists involved, it would never progress.

mkfreeberg: Actually, that is how science progresses.

…

mkfreeberg: Not perfection of the scientists; but if flaws are found in the experimentation, in the data collected, in the analysis of the data, or in the arrival at the conclusion, that is tainting.

You’ll never eliminate all flaws in experiments, in data, in analysis, in deduction. If science depended on perfection in any of these, then science would never progress.

Severian: who somehow still have the intellectual and moral superiority to compare millions of their fellow citizens to neo-Nazis.

You must be referring to Roy Spencer, as noted in the original post.
- Zachriel | 02/24/2014 @ 11:34
You all are displaying y’all’s legendary reading comprehension skills again.
- Severian | 02/24/2014 @ 12:27
And, doing a bang-up job of showing why the climate models failed to predict the climate. And how the healthcare.gov launch went the way it did.

“I’m human, not perfect!!” Has there ever been a B student earning D grades, who didn’t flock to that old standby like a moth to a flame once cornered by mom & dad? Maybe instead of babbling away about perfection & being human, it would be a lot less work to just — admit to wrong choices made, too much procrastination being done, inadequate humility, inadequate ambition, start making that list of things to do differently next time.

That what we have to do out here in the real world, where things have to actually work.
- mkfreeberg | 02/24/2014 @ 18:45
Sadly, that’s asking a tiger to change his stripes.

I’m trying to think of the last time I heard a liberal admit he had ever been wrong about anything of consequence. A liberal who believes today the exact opposite of what he believed five years ago — like President Obama on gay marriage, say — wasn’t wrong then, and he’s not a hypocrite now. He’s just “evolved”; the issue is “dynamic”; we have a “living” Constitution. Being a liberal means you can do 180s all day long like a figure skater on crack, and pat yourself on the back for your “nuanced” views and mental flexibility.

Meanwhile, conservatives — whose opinions have a foundation other than self-congratulation — tend to feel a bit uneasy about celebrating today what they condemned yesterday, and vice versa. It’s part of that “living in the real world” thing. If liberals could do that, they wouldn’t be liberals.
- Severian | 02/25/2014 @ 05:50
[…] I quoted severian back then, and shall do so again: […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 02/25/2014 @ 07:36
mkfreeberg: “I’m human, not perfect!!” Has there ever been a B student earning D grades, who didn’t flock to that old standby like a moth to a flame once cornered by mom & dad?

Of course that wasn’t the point. You had said something about perfection is required for scientific progress. That was incorrect.

mkfreeberg: Maybe instead of babbling away about perfection & being human, it would be a lot less work to just — admit to wrong choices made, too much procrastination being done, inadequate humility, inadequate ambition, start making that list of things to do differently next time.

Wrong choices are made all the time. Do you understand how imperfect people and imperfect methodologies can still yield reasonable conclusions?

Severian: like President Obama on gay marriage, say — wasn’t wrong then, and he’s not a hypocrite now.

He was wrong then. He’s a hypocrite now. He will say he has grown, but the fact is that he understood the issue all along. Same with Clinton.

Severian: Being a liberal means you can do 180s all day long like a figure skater on crack, and pat yourself on the back for your “nuanced” views and mental flexibility.

It’s not unique to liberals, but an aspect of politics. Hypocrisy is a professional requirement.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2014 @ 07:46
Hypocrisy is a professional requirement.

Really? Well, go tell that to folks vowing <a href="http://theothermccain.com/2014/02/23/lgbt-activist-declares-we-need-to-start-making-their-lives-a-living-hell/comment-page-1/#comment-323406"make life a "living hell" for those who don’t kowtow to the gay agenda. Explain to them that hey, it’s just politics.

For that matter, quit commenting here. We all know “global warming” is really happening, nudge-nudge, wink-wink. But we’ve all got bills to pay. It’s just politics.
- Severian | 02/25/2014 @ 08:54
Shit. Sorry about the tags. (Observe the syntax, Cuttlefish. There should be a closed bracket (>) after the string of digits. This is how you embed a hyperlink. Y’all could at least try to learn something for once).
- Severian | 02/25/2014 @ 08:56
Severian: Explain to them that hey, it’s just politics.

We didn’t say hypocrisy was a good thing, just an ordinary thing. Sometimes politicians rise above the fray, but more often compromise. Nor are political activists constrained the same as politicians who seek election by the general public.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2014 @ 09:17
Nor are political activists constrained the same as politicians who seek election by the general public.

Ah. So “activists” are free to “make life a living hell” for their opponents in order to advance the causes of politicians who could sell them out at any time, because hey, it’s just politics.

Such a fascinating morality y’all have.
- Severian | 02/25/2014 @ 09:26
Severian: Ah. So “activists” are free to “make life a living hell” for their opponents in order to advance the causes of politicians who could sell them out at any time, because hey, it’s just politics.

Didn’t say that either. You suggested that liberal politicians were hypocritical. We pointed out that hypocrisy is common among politicians of all stripes. You then provided an example of activists who aren’t constrained by general elections.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2014 @ 09:40
Didn’t say that either.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! I’m just applying Zachriel-style reading comprehension.

Oh, wait, no I’m not — my interpretation actually follows from what’s on the page. Never mind. Y’all were saying something about political activists? Who, you know, actively encourage politicians to push agendas? Politicians who are then free to sell them out on the drop of a hat, because hey, it’s just politics?

Fascinating. No wonder y’all support racial hygiene.
- Severian | 02/25/2014 @ 10:59
Severian: I’m just applying Zachriel-style reading comprehension.

Then you would attempt to understand our position rather than misrepresenting it.

Severian: Who, you know, actively encourage politicians to push agendas?

Sure. Activists are often single-minded in their pursuit of their goal.

Severian: No wonder y’all support racial hygiene.

Um, no.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2014 @ 11:08
Then you would attempt to understand our position rather than misrepresenting it.

Coming from y’all, that’s the height of comedy. I bet y’all have ’em in stitches on open mic nights.

Um, no.

Um, yes.
- Severian | 02/25/2014 @ 11:28
Severian: Um, yes.

Sorry, but you don’t get to determine our position, only your own. We reject “racial hygiene”.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2014 @ 11:30
Y’all presume to determine our positions here all the time. So, tough — you support racial hygiene. Learn some reading comprehension skills, and we’ll review our position on your position once you’ve proved you can learn.
- Severian | 02/25/2014 @ 12:13
Severian: Y’all presume to determine our positions here all the time.

Not at all. We’ll restate a position to make sure we have it right, rarely getting a straight answer, but that’s the same as determining your position.

Severian: you support racial hygiene.

That would be a falsehood. Do you often propagate claims you know to be false?
- Zachriel | 02/25/2014 @ 12:17
but that’s {not} the same as determining your position.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2014 @ 12:17
Do you often propagate claims you know to be false?

But, you see, I don’t know that it’s false. All I have is y’all’s statements. And given your manifest inability to comprehend what you read — did you ever figure out what Tom Sowell was actually saying?” — I have good reasons to doubt your comprehension of any subject.

but that’s {not} the same as determining your position.

See what I mean? Forget y’all’s obvious misstatements and mischaracterizations, and your well-documented inability to correctly attribute quotes… you can’t even fucking type half the time.
- Severian | 02/25/2014 @ 12:51
Severian: See what I mean?

Yes, you purposefully misrepresent positions.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2014 @ 12:54
Nope. It’s y’all’s lack of reading comprehension acting up again. Work on that.
- Severian | 02/25/2014 @ 13:06
Severian: Nope.

Sure you do.

Z: We reject racial hygiene
S: you support racial hygiene

It’s hard to more overtly misrepresent someone than that.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2014 @ 13:10
Nope…. you’re still missing it. Keep trying. You should’ve gotten basic reading comprehension in grade school, but… better late than never.
- Severian | 02/25/2014 @ 13:23
Cannot begin to tell you guys how enjoyable it is to read the absolute destruction of the Z on this thread while providing a cornucupia of quotes that I can use to refute others of their ilk. Thanks again.
- drowningpuppies | 02/25/2014 @ 14:37
Thanks! It’s good to know somebody gets something out of it…. ’cause they sure as hell don’t.

[Other than an aching cornhole, I suppose, but I suspect for them that’s a feature not a bug]
- Severian | 02/25/2014 @ 14:44
Still trying to envision the scenario under which science is advanced when the efforts are flawed…

How do you validate a theory, or merely eliminate a possibility, perhaps debunk a theory — while making an error in your work? Isn’t this the whole point of peer review?

If your scientific work is found to be erroneous, but it somehow stands because, heck, you worked really hard on it and jeez, everybody makes mistakes and stuff…well, I dunno. Maybe nowadays it does work that way. We’re probably living in the time where the millennial kids have started to become scientists. But, either way. If you “advance the science” when you don’t have the validated work to be advancing it, to consider the theory upheld or to consider the possibility properly eliminated — once again, it would be wrong to call that “science.” You do have every right to call it that. But you’d be wrong to do so.

Science is not a closed-membership, it is a process.
- mkfreeberg | 02/26/2014 @ 06:02
mkfreeberg: Still trying to envision the scenario under which science is advanced when the efforts are flawed…

This shows you really don’t know how science works. A simple example would Einstein’s stubbornness with regards to quantum theory. In order to defend his notions of determinism, he proposed a thought-experiment, EPR 1935, which led to Bell’s research and later experimental results that undermined Einstein’s position.

It isn’t the perfection of the scientists, or the perfection of their methods, or their inordinate skills, or how polite they are. The scientific method acts as a filter. It’s a practical methodology whose primary characteristic is verification by independent researchers using various methodologies.
- Zachriel | 02/26/2014 @ 07:43
This shows you really don’t know how science works.

**AHEM**

We’ll restate a position to make sure we have it right, rarely getting a straight answer, but that’s the same as determining your position.

Seig Heil.
- Severian | 02/26/2014 @ 07:54
A simple example would Einstein’s stubbornness with regards to quantum theory. In order to defend his notions of determinism, he proposed a thought-experiment, EPR 1935, which led to Bell’s research and later experimental results that undermined Einstein’s position.

So coming up with the wrong explanation, is y’all’s idea of advancing science.

Well YEAH…when y’all live in a snowglobe-reality-bubble of “wrong ideas are just as good as the right ones,” then science is advancing pretty much constantly. But then it falls to the people who believe in reality to build things that actually work. Seems we’re talking past each other with a semantic disagreement about what “science” is.

We know from previous discussions that y’all are capable of comprehending only the content of an idea, not the idea’s level of certainty. So we’re not going to be able to explore this within y’all’s limited understanding unless y’all have managed to do some growing since then. Not sure that that’s the case.
- mkfreeberg | 02/26/2014 @ 07:56
Severian: We’ll restate a position to make sure we have it right

That wasn’t a statement of position, but a claim about his depth of knowledge.

mkfreeberg: So coming up with the wrong explanation, is y’all’s idea of advancing science.

It can. Einstein’s thought-experiment led to results that undermined his position.

mkfreeberg: Well YEAH…when y’all live in a snowglobe-reality-bubble of “wrong ideas are just as good as the right ones,” then science is advancing pretty much constantly.

Science progresses by considering many ideas then determining which are best supported by the evidence. Science could never advance if it required perfection in scientists, who often stubbornly defend their ideas; perfection in methodology, which often involves incomplete data; or perfection in theory, which are approximations, and usually wrong in one aspect or another.
- Zachriel | 02/26/2014 @ 08:04
Einstein’s thought-experiment led to results that undermined his position.

Ah yes, zero credit to the people who actually did the work; the “you didn’t build that” thing.
- mkfreeberg | 02/26/2014 @ 08:14
mkfreeberg: Ah yes, zero credit to the people who actually did the work; the “you didn’t build that” thing.

In science, EPR is considered work, as is Bell’s Theorem which built on EPR. Keep in mind that all models are wrong, but some are useful. It’s in the nature of science to deal with uncertainty.

Before your detour into “perfection”, your point seemed more concerned with scientists who undermine the scientific process. An example was provided of scientists who wanted to keep a paper out of the peer review literature. That’s because they didn’t think the paper was worth publication. The paper was included in the final IPCC report. There’s nothing out of the ordinary about any of that.
- Zachriel | 02/26/2014 @ 09:18
Speaking of scientific papers worthy of publication…..

Heh heh heh. Science is fun.
- Severian | 02/26/2014 @ 10:33
Severian: Science is fun.

Then there’s Galileo who thought tides were the oceans sloshing around because of the Earth’s movement.

Good times!
- Zachriel | 02/26/2014 @ 10:36
Huh… hundreds of “scientific” papers pulled from “peer-reviewed” journals because they’re computer generated gibberish, and that’s your response?

Holy canollis but y’all suck at arguing.
- Severian | 02/26/2014 @ 12:41
Severian: Huh… hundreds of “scientific” papers pulled from “peer-reviewed” journals because they’re computer generated gibberish, and that’s your response?

Lots of gibberish gets published that’s written by humans too!
- Zachriel | 02/26/2014 @ 15:25
Anyone else want to slam dunk that one?
- Severian | 02/26/2014 @ 15:28
There’s nothing out of the ordinary about any of that.

Quite right.

And now, I’m off to go watch some more Odd Couple reruns with Mrs. Freeberg, have another glass of wine, run a load of laundry, and re-define what peer review is. All completely ordinary.
- mkfreeberg | 02/26/2014 @ 20:22
Eh, peer review is a joke anyway, as that link shows.

Labbé is no stranger to fake studies. In April 2010, he used SCIgen to generate 102 fake papers by a fictional author called Ike Antkare… Labbé showed how easy it was to add these fake papers to the Google Scholar database, boosting Ike Antkare’s h-index, a measure of published output, to 94 — at the time, making Antkare the world’s 21st most highly cited scientist

I could get a paper published showing the miraculous health benefits of a 100% dogshit diet if I proposed massive government regulations at the tail end.
- Severian | 02/27/2014 @ 07:25
[…] commented here recently, offering up the idea that something called “science” is advanced when […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 02/28/2014 @ 07:42

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Comparing Global Warming Panic-Mongers to NazisFriday, February 21st, 2014

Comparing Global Warming Panic-Mongers to Nazis
Friday, February 21st, 2014