Remember me
▼ Content

Basic arithmetic



Page 2 of 4<1234>
19-09-2016 20:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Well, if you wish to lead a crusade against the "corruption of modern science," by all means, but how else do we tell non-scientists what the science is, especially with such a politicized and hot topic as global warming?

"I have one piece of evidence that says that you are wrong, ergo no matter how much data you have that says you are right, you are wrong." That's not science, that's stupid. We're talking about a binary observation, not a theory. If 99.999% of observations show that the Earth is warming, one piece of data won't topple it all.
19-09-2016 21:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Well, if you wish to lead a crusade against the "corruption of modern science," by all means, but how else do we tell non-scientists what the science is, especially with such a politicized and hot topic as global warming?

"I have one piece of evidence that says that you are wrong, ergo no matter how much data you have that says you are right, you are wrong." That's not science, that's stupid. We're talking about a binary observation, not a theory. If 99.999% of observations show that the Earth is warming, one piece of data won't topple it all.


False equivalence. You are assuming Global Warming is science in the first place. It isn't. It's a circular argument only.

One bit of falsifying evidence can easily justify the discarding of mountains of supporting evidence. You are literally using the same argument as any religion.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2016 22:03
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No... there is a margin of error for data. I'd expect there to be maybe one out of every several hundred studies that don't show warming.

How is it a circular argument? Are you talking about the theory of GW or the observation of GW?
20-09-2016 00:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
No... there is a margin of error for data. I'd expect there to be maybe one out of every several hundred studies that don't show warming.

How is it a circular argument? Are you talking about the theory of GW or the observation of GW?


Both.

Since you have demonstrated that you don't understand either formal or informal logic, I will explain it to you.

A circular argument in it's mos basic form is "A is true, therefore A is true."

You are literally trying to prove a conclusion with itself as the predicate.

The theory of Global Warming has no predicate other than itself. There is no data that shows whether the globe is warming, cooling, or just staying the same.

There is no data because the margin of error resulting from the data we do have completely swamps the result out to be meaningless. It is statistics that says we have no data. I will not write a book on probability, the definition and generation of random numbers, and statistics here on this forum. These are materials you need to study yourself.

Observation is not part of a theory, other than to inspire one. In science, no observation can prove a theory. The kind of thinking where it could went out with Aristotle. That kind of thinking gave us a wrong ideas about why objects float, the terracentric system of planets, incorrect ideas about how objects fall, etc. It is why the Aristotelian method is no longer used.

Observation itself is subject to one's interpretation. If you interpret an observation a certain way, such as assuming the Global Warming argument to be true, the observation becomes the 'evidence' to support the initial circular argument.

It is the same way a religion works.

At least most religions admit they are starting from a circular argument.

A circular argument has another name: Faith.

When you attempt to apply physics incorrectly to build support for your circular argument, you get called on it by me and IBDaMann. What you are really trying to do is get around the initial circular argument through the 'back door' by describing mechanisms of Global Warming, without ever addressing the initial circular argument.

Regardless of whatever mechanism you come up with to try to explain Global Warming, you still don't have any data to tell you whether the globe is warming, cooling, or staying the same.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 01:05
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
So if observation doesn't matter... Then we don't need any data after all?!
20-09-2016 01:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Look, I'm describing methods of GW because you say there are none.

Observation is the foundation of science. Without it, we'd still be thinking that heavy objects fall faster than heavy objects. Observation leads to testing leads to theory leads to testing leads to more certain theory or disproven theory. You can't cut out the last part. Observation is what falsifies something.

Let's move to the thread I made for this. You seem a bit inconsistent. If falsifiability is so important, why do you discount data?
Edited on 20-09-2016 01:12
20-09-2016 02:27
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
You continue to attack IBdaMann and ignore his arguments.


As he has me and mine.

Is this your business or no? Your "pissing match" comment seems to indicate no.

I don't care how vitriolic he is.


Then why do you care how vitriolic I am to him?

Because you were vitriolic with me without cause. You attacked me, you attacked my credentials (you have no idea what they are), you attacked my business, you attacked my ability to conduct my business by saying I don't know my business, you attacked my country.

And after I tried to demonstrate patience with you, even after the first warning.

He can be as vitriolic as he likes. You can't justify it. You're an ingrate. You have joined that which he despises most: The Church of Global Warming and the Church of Marxism.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You've earned it.


How have I earned it any less than he has? Furthermore, since he is the initiator (see his "welcome") of our conflict, I really don't see how slightly contributing to the problem places everything on me.

DON'T play innocent with me. He saw you for what you are before I did. He often has.

jwoodward48 wrote:
TL;DR: If what he's doing to me is okay, than what I'm doing to him is okay. Fair is fair. Fair is not "he's my friend, I'll be lenient and side with him against jwood".

Fair is fair. If you want to go down that road with me, now you have TWO people using vitriolic language against you.

Guess how you get yourself out of this predicament?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Deal with it.


Sure. This is my attempt to do so; getting you out of our "pissing matches" will make it easier to handle. Ganging up on someone can't be done with only one person.

I am not the judge of the pissing match. But your pissing on me has made me a participant.

I have no intention of just forgiving you. Not until you show more than just saying 'sorry'.

Here is your way out:

1) renounce your membership in the Church of Global Warming and its teachings.
2) renounce your membership in the Church of Marx and its teachings.
3) stop attacking people, even those that attack you. This must be demonstrated over time.

If you show me 3), then I have an indication that you are actually willing to discuss things. That alone is the restitution I require. We can work on 1) and 2) if you can perform 3).

Until then, I cannot accept your apology.


I'm quoting this to explain why I'm not sorry anymore.

My respect and politeness for you is not dependent on whether you agree with me. It's whether you're an arsehole or not. The insults are one thing, that might have been a bit too much. If that was all you said, I MIGHT want to fix things. But saying that I needed to give up my socialism and agreement with GW to earn not even respect, but simple decency? That's going too far. I thought you'd be different from every other stalwart conservative I've met. You weren't. How can you take my socialism as a personal insult? Here's how.

You view any disagreement as a personal insult. You only put up with me for as long as you could teach me. Once my knowledge of climate science caught up, you could only "teach" me your conspiracy theories and baselessly assert violations of science. Even if I had pointed this out politely. I doubt you would have responses any differently.

The last paragraph says it all: anyone who disagrees must be purposefully ignoring your arguments. I can't be friendly with someone like that. Decent? Yes. I am working on that. But you are just sickeningly biased, so much that you can't accept anybody who doesn't interpret every word you say as if it came from the mouth of God.

You are the religious one. You want blind faith. I offer none.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
20-09-2016 04:06
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
"Observation itself is subject to one's interpretation. If you interpret an observation a certain way, such as assuming the Global Warming argument to be true, the observation becomes the 'evidence' to support the initial circular argument."

Who's right: you, or the scientific method? If any data can be interpreted any way with equal validity (since you haven't told me how GW data is special), then the scientific method breaks down. That means that science breaks down. You are going against basic tenets of science - that objective observation is possible. How do we know observation isn't biased? If it can be replicated, and it is replicated, then it's the surest answer we've got.

Keep in mind that it's a binary issue. Either the Earth is heating or it's not. If 19 out of every 20 studies supports GW, then we have a good margin of error. In reality, the proportion is far more unbalanced.

Read up about meta-analyses if you disagree.
20-09-2016 05:43
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Also, underdetermination is an interesting topic.

(You may argue that GW science is special because the government cares about it. The government funds more than just GW science. You have not demonstrated why they would force scientists to fudge just one type of science, not all. You also have not demonstrated why independent scientists would fudge data, or whether you believe all governments to be working together to cover up a lack of global warming.)
20-09-2016 12:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
You continue to attack IBdaMann and ignore his arguments.


As he has me and mine.

Is this your business or no? Your "pissing match" comment seems to indicate no.

I don't care how vitriolic he is.


Then why do you care how vitriolic I am to him?

Because you were vitriolic with me without cause. You attacked me, you attacked my credentials (you have no idea what they are), you attacked my business, you attacked my ability to conduct my business by saying I don't know my business, you attacked my country.

And after I tried to demonstrate patience with you, even after the first warning.

He can be as vitriolic as he likes. You can't justify it. You're an ingrate. You have joined that which he despises most: The Church of Global Warming and the Church of Marxism.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You've earned it.


How have I earned it any less than he has? Furthermore, since he is the initiator (see his "welcome") of our conflict, I really don't see how slightly contributing to the problem places everything on me.

DON'T play innocent with me. He saw you for what you are before I did. He often has.

jwoodward48 wrote:
TL;DR: If what he's doing to me is okay, than what I'm doing to him is okay. Fair is fair. Fair is not "he's my friend, I'll be lenient and side with him against jwood".

Fair is fair. If you want to go down that road with me, now you have TWO people using vitriolic language against you.

Guess how you get yourself out of this predicament?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Deal with it.


Sure. This is my attempt to do so; getting you out of our "pissing matches" will make it easier to handle. Ganging up on someone can't be done with only one person.

I am not the judge of the pissing match. But your pissing on me has made me a participant.

I have no intention of just forgiving you. Not until you show more than just saying 'sorry'.

Here is your way out:

1) renounce your membership in the Church of Global Warming and its teachings.
2) renounce your membership in the Church of Marx and its teachings.
3) stop attacking people, even those that attack you. This must be demonstrated over time.

If you show me 3), then I have an indication that you are actually willing to discuss things. That alone is the restitution I require. We can work on 1) and 2) if you can perform 3).

Until then, I cannot accept your apology.


I'm quoting this to explain why I'm not sorry anymore.

My respect and politeness for you is not dependent on whether you agree with me. It's whether you're an arsehole or not. The insults are one thing, that might have been a bit too much. If that was all you said, I MIGHT want to fix things. But saying that I needed to give up my socialism and agreement with GW to earn not even respect, but simple decency? That's going too far. I thought you'd be different from every other stalwart conservative I've met. You weren't. How can you take my socialism as a personal insult? Here's how.

You view any disagreement as a personal insult. You only put up with me for as long as you could teach me. Once my knowledge of climate science caught up, you could only "teach" me your conspiracy theories and baselessly assert violations of science. Even if I had pointed this out politely. I doubt you would have responses any differently.

The last paragraph says it all: anyone who disagrees must be purposefully ignoring your arguments. I can't be friendly with someone like that. Decent? Yes. I am working on that. But you are just sickeningly biased, so much that you can't accept anybody who doesn't interpret every word you say as if it came from the mouth of God.

You are the religious one. You want blind faith. I offer none.


Warped.

I did not make renouncing your socialism a requirement of restitution. I specifically set it aside.
Though it is a personal insult to me I was willing to overlook because of the pervasive nature of the viewpoint.

I do not support a viewpoint that steals from my wealth to give to another. It is theft.

Since you now wish to practice Bulverism, there is nothing more I can do for you. I condemn you to the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Marx. You will be the first to pay the price for your religions.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 14:21
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Pay the... Price? You planning a revolution anytime soon?
20-09-2016 14:38
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
He's starting a deathsquad.
20-09-2016 14:40
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Okay, I did read the final paragraph again, and it seems I got one part of it backward. Agreement is not immediately necessary for me to "get out of it," but I will not enter into an agreement that would imply that I would later denounce GW and socialism. Furthermore, the statement still shows all the other things I noted.
20-09-2016 14:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
jwoodward48 wrote: You may argue that GW science is special because the government cares about it.

Not at all. I find "GW science" an interesting concept because it does not exist any more than Santa Claus.

It's not like you're going to be posting the Global Warming equation that has survived the scientific method.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-09-2016 14:43
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
In case you don't get my "revolution" post, besides repealing the 1st, that's the only way I've done anything wrong in the eyes of the law. So you can either physically or mentally harm or harass - wait, you can't! You don't know who I am or where I live. That leaves being an arsehole, which you're already doing, so I can't "be the first" - I already have!

TL;DR: bring it ****ing on
Edited on 20-09-2016 15:34
20-09-2016 17:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
jwoodward48 wrote: So if observation doesn't matter... Then we don't need any data after all?!

Exactly. If you have science, data is no longer needed. I hope you realize that engineers design stuff from science, not from data.

I hope you realize that engineers design stuff from science, not from the latest consensus of the IPCC "climate scientists."

Science cares nothing for observations and captures none of them.

The scientific method cares only for falsifying data/observations and cares nothing for any "supporting" data/observations.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-09-2016 18:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
How do you falsify without observation? If two competing theories both agree with existing data, we need to get more data from where the theories disagree.

Building science on science without any observation is like trying to build a city on a single brick hut.

Summary: how do you even claim to know science? I learned the scientific method in middle school. A middle schooler could prove you wrong.
20-09-2016 20:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
spot wrote:
He's starting a deathsquad.


Don't need to. These churches are suicide squads. They will kill themselves and their own members will pay for it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-09-2016 20:44
20-09-2016 20:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
In case you don't get my "revolution" post, besides repealing the 1st, that's the only way I've done anything wrong in the eyes of the law. So you can either physically or mentally harm or harass - wait, you can't! You don't know who I am or where I live. That leaves being an arsehole, which you're already doing, so I can't "be the first" - I already have!

TL;DR: bring it ****ing on


Nah. You have revealed yourself to be an unrepentant condescending Bulverist ****.

There is really no one to blame for the mudslinging other than yourself.

Since you can't seem to cope with the heat in the kitchen, may I suggest one of the "baby" forums where you won't get attacked like you will here?


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 20:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
How do you falsify without observation? If two competing theories both agree with existing data, we need to get more data from where the theories disagree.

Building science on science without any observation is like trying to build a city on a single brick hut.

Summary: how do you even claim to know science? I learned the scientific method in middle school. A middle schooler could prove you wrong.


The failings of K-12 are well known. You've been duped.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 20:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
So, you're claiming that observation has no place in science except in the conception of a theory? Is that really what you're saying?

My Bulverist tendencies are a mockery of yours and IB's. If you can't take the heat, well, I didn't start the fire. I can take all sorts of heat. I just don't think that's scientific, and thus has no place here, but if you want this forum to devolve into a pit of name-calling and an abyss of ad hominem, by all means.

And if you think that I will die because of "the global warming hoax," you're quite mistaken.
20-09-2016 21:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
jwoodward48 wrote: So, you're claiming that observation has no place in science except in the conception of a theory? Is that really what you're saying?

I believe that what I am saying is what I said in the words I used.

Pick your favorite science model.

jwoodward48 wrote: My Bulverist tendencies are a mockery of yours and IB's.

Nope. This is your attempt to rewrite history. You started with the bulverism. You couldn't have been mocking something in others that you were initiating.

In any event, it is pointless for you to try to play the victim to me. I was there. You insulted me from the start. I'm not sure how you plan to convince me that I somehow started out insulting poor little ol' you.

Anyway, I'll be over here addressing science whenever you feel like joining in.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-09-2016 22:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Okay, a closer look reveals that you were saying that data is only useful to falsify, not support, theories.

But in a binary situation like is/isn't the Earth warming, supporting data for Side A is equivalent to falsifying data for Side B. Thus when the question isn't an explanation of an event, but rather when an event is happening at all, supporting data is in fact useful.

"Nope. This is your attempt to rewrite history. You started with the bulverism. You couldn't have been mocking something in others that you were initiating.

In any event, it is pointless for you to try to play the victim to me. I was there. You insulted me from the start. I'm not sure how you plan to convince me that I somehow started out insulting poor little ol' you.

Anyway, I'll be over here addressing science whenever you feel like joining in."

My first post was not insulting you. It was noting that regardless of how stupid deniers and warmers might find each other, neither of us is as stupid as a flat-Earther. It was a first attempt at friendliness. What was I responded to with?

"Please don't call me a "skeptic." Global Warming / Climate Change skeptics are anything but. They don't question anything. They accept all the "greenhouse effect" violations of physics they are handed. They eagerly BELIEVE their WACKY religious faith is actually "settled science." They persecute with venom and with extreme prejudice all non-believers like they are on a crusade. Their arguments are just petty personal insults. They quickly become ashsoles when someone starts bringing actual science into the discussion."

That is, you were an ashshoal to me in your very first response to me.

Stop rewriting history, dumbass. Do you really think I'll fall for that?
Edited on 20-09-2016 22:30
20-09-2016 23:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
So, you're claiming that observation has no place in science except in the conception of a theory? Is that really what you're saying?

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. Even an observation that falsifies a theory often becomes the inspiration of the new theory that will replace it. Observations that falsify theories are themselves taking that theory out of science, and are therefore not part of science.
jwoodward48 wrote:
My Bulverist tendencies are a mockery of yours and IB's.
This statement doesn't even make sense.
jwoodward48 wrote:
If you can't take the heat, well, I didn't start the fire.
Yes you did. Twice with me. From what I am hearing from IBDaMann, at least once with him.
jwoodward48 wrote:
I can take all sorts of heat.
Suuuure you can. *snicker* You're continued rants on who started it prove otherwise. You're a wimp, whining because you got caught.
jwoodward48 wrote:
I just don't think that's scientific,
The world of science is full of contentions and often outright nastiness. So is most of the world you live in. Get used to it, dude.
jwoodward48 wrote:
and thus has no place here,
Forums like this are open discussions of contentious subjects. It IS the heat of the kitchen.
jwoodward48 wrote:
but if you want this forum to devolve into a pit of name-calling and an abyss of ad hominem, by all means.
DON'T play innocent with me. I gave you more than a fair chance. Twice. You blew it.
jwoodward48 wrote:
And if you think that I will die because of "the global warming hoax," you're quite mistaken.

While that's possible, that is not what I said. The price you will pay is quite probably not death, but slavery. You will become a slave of the very institutions you defend.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 23:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay, a closer look reveals that you were saying that data is only useful to falsify, not support, theories.

But in a binary situation like is/isn't the Earth warming, supporting data for Side A is equivalent to falsifying data for Side B. Thus when the question isn't an explanation of an event, but rather when an event is happening at all, supporting data is in fact useful.

Side B doesn't exist. You can't falsify a theory that doesn't exist. No theory is required to say the globe could be doing something besides warming. You are trying to invert the polarity of side B into a positive predicate. It's a negative predicate dude, and you can't change it.
jwoodward48 wrote:
"Nope. This is your attempt to rewrite history. You started with the bulverism. You couldn't have been mocking something in others that you were initiating.
Again this statement doesn't make sense. I don't think you know what Bulverism is. (hint: it's a fallacy)

jwoodward48 wrote:
In any event, it is pointless for you to try to play the victim to me. I was there. You insulted me from the start. I'm not sure how you plan to convince me that I somehow started out insulting poor little ol' you.
Rather a hollow argument after I gave you more than a fair chance, twice.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Anyway, I'll be over here addressing science whenever you feel like joining in."

My first post was not insulting you. It was noting that regardless of how stupid deniers and warmers might find each other, neither of us is as stupid as a flat-Earther. It was a first attempt at friendliness. What was I responded to with?
That's between you and IBDaMann. Personally, at this point I am willing to believe IBDaMann's story over yours. You DO have a tendency to change your story a lot to suit your current purpose.
jwoodward48 wrote:
"Please don't call me a "skeptic." Global Warming / Climate Change skeptics are anything but. They don't question anything. They accept all the "greenhouse effect" violations of physics they are handed. They eagerly BELIEVE their WACKY religious faith is actually "settled science." They persecute with venom and with extreme prejudice all non-believers like they are on a crusade. Their arguments are just petty personal insults. They quickly become ashsoles when someone starts bringing actual science into the discussion."

That is, you were an ashshoal to me in your very first response to me.

Stop rewriting history, dumbass. Do you really think I'll fall for that?


It is YOU that is attempting to rewrite history. Rather unsuccessfully I might add.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 01:52
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
So, you're claiming that observation has no place in science except in the conception of a theory? Is that really what you're saying?

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. Even an observation that falsifies a theory often becomes the inspiration of the new theory that will replace it. Observations that falsify theories are themselves taking that theory out of science, and are therefore not part of science.


I'm not getting it. The systematic falsification of things that are not true via observation is part of the scientific process. How can you claim that "showing that theory X is false because it disagrees with observation" is not science?

jwoodward48 wrote:
My Bulverist tendencies are a mockery of yours and IB's.
This statement doesn't even make sense.


You are a bulverist. I bulverise to mock you. You then grump about my bulverising.

jwoodward48 wrote:
If you can't take the heat, well, I didn't start the fire.
Yes you did. Twice with me. From what I am hearing from IBDaMann, at least once with him.


Yet again, look at the ****ing page!! How did I provoke his first post to me?

jwoodward48 wrote:
I can take all sorts of heat.
Suuuure you can. *snicker* You're continued rants on who started it prove otherwise. You're a wimp, whining because you got caught.


I am saying that you do not have the moral upper ground. That is not the same as "cannot take the heat". (insult ignored)

jwoodward48 wrote:
I just don't think that's scientific,
The world of science is full of contentions and often outright nastiness. So is most of the world you live in. Get used to it, dude.


People do bad things, ergo it's okay to do bad things, and being nasty actually supports my science!

jwoodward48 wrote:
and thus has no place here,
Forums like this are open discussions of contentious subjects. It IS the heat of the kitchen.


"Being nasty is okay, because being nasty is how we show who's right. Not rational debate. Nastiness is correlated with the truth, you know, in all the nasty studies I did last week, in which I completely ignored all data because data has no place in science. Just thinking. What do you mean, that's called philosophy?"

jwoodward48 wrote:
but if you want this forum to devolve into a pit of name-calling and an abyss of ad hominem, by all means.
DON'T play innocent with me. I gave you more than a fair chance. Twice. You blew it.[/quote]

When I blew it, you showed your true colours. I was going to try and make amends, but now I can wholeheartedly say **** you.

jwoodward48 wrote:
And if you think that I will die because of "the global warming hoax," you're quite mistaken.

While that's possible, that is not what I said. The price you will pay is quite probably not death, but slavery. You will become a slave of the very institutions you defend.[/quote]

Well, I'm fine with the risk of that over the risk of global warming. Besides, we're all on our way to becoming the slaves of the corporations - I figure a government that has the slightest commitment to the law is better than a corporatocracy.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
21-09-2016 02:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
So, you're claiming that observation has no place in science except in the conception of a theory? Is that really what you're saying?

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. Even an observation that falsifies a theory often becomes the inspiration of the new theory that will replace it. Observations that falsify theories are themselves taking that theory out of science, and are therefore not part of science.


I'm not getting it. The systematic falsification of things that are not true via observation is part of the scientific process. How can you claim that "showing that theory X is false because it disagrees with observation" is not science?
Why are you asking me to repeat myself?

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
My Bulverist tendencies are a mockery of yours and IB's.
This statement doesn't even make sense.


You are a bulverist. I bulverise to mock you. You then grump about my bulverising.

Again, this sentence does not make sense. I don't think you know what you're talking about, whatever that is.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
If you can't take the heat, well, I didn't start the fire.
Yes you did. Twice with me. From what I am hearing from IBDaMann, at least once with him.


Yet again, look at the ****ing page!! How did I provoke his first post to me?
Since neither you or he are referencing the ****ing page, or what led to it, I have no idea what you're talking about.

I do know a couple of things, though. You change your story and lie about what was and what was not said constantly. The other is that I gave you more than a fair shake and you blew it.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I can take all sorts of heat.
Suuuure you can. *snicker* You're continued rants on who started it prove otherwise. You're a wimp, whining because you got caught.


I am saying that you do not have the moral upper ground. That is not the same as "cannot take the heat". (insult ignored)

Actually, it is.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I just don't think that's scientific,
The world of science is full of contentions and often outright nastiness. So is most of the world you live in. Get used to it, dude.


People do bad things, ergo it's okay to do bad things, and being nasty actually supports my science!
jwoodward48 wrote:
and thus has no place here,
Forums like this are open discussions of contentious subjects. It IS the heat of the kitchen.


"Being nasty is okay, because being nasty is how we show who's right. Not rational debate. Nastiness is correlated with the truth, you know, in all the nasty studies I did last week, in which I completely ignored all data because data has no place in science. Just thinking. What do you mean, that's called philosophy?"

jwoodward48 wrote:
but if you want this forum to devolve into a pit of name-calling and an abyss of ad hominem, by all means.
DON'T play innocent with me. I gave you more than a fair chance. Twice. You blew it.


When I blew it, you showed your true colours. I was going to try and make amends, but now I can wholeheartedly say **** you.

Meh.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
And if you think that I will die because of "the global warming hoax," you're quite mistaken.

While that's possible, that is not what I said. The price you will pay is quite probably not death, but slavery. You will become a slave of the very institutions you defend.


Well, I'm fine with the risk of that over the risk of global warming. Besides, we're all on our way to becoming the slaves of the corporations - I figure a government that has the slightest commitment to the law is better than a corporatocracy.


There is no risk of global warming. Customers are not slaves. They are buyers, if they choose to be.

I don't have a problem with lawful governments. I have a problem with government going beyond the law. That's why I believe a republic is the best way.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 21-09-2016 02:26
21-09-2016 02:52
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I'm not asking you to repeat yourself. You've done enough of that. I'm asking you to explain yourself. Not the same terms. Those were not enough. More terms, as I cannot understand how the scientific elimination of untrue theories via observation is somehow... not science.
21-09-2016 03:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm not asking you to repeat yourself. You've done enough of that. I'm asking you to explain yourself. Not the same terms. Those were not enough. More terms, as I cannot understand how the scientific elimination of untrue theories via observation is somehow... not science.


Apparently you are correct about one thing, you cannot understand.

Go back and read it again. This isn't kindergarten.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 03:49
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Okay, I just asked my biology professor. He said that supporting data is important in science, since it shows that tests were done that could have disproven it. Refute that.

"Science cares nothing for observations and captures none of them. The scientific method cares only for falsifying data/observations and cares nothing for any "supporting" data/observations."

You just contradicted yourself. Science is the application of the scientific method. The scientific method is the foundation of science. If the scientific method "cares" about something, then science also "cares" about it.

And furthermore, there is a margin of error for studies. (Let's take a=0.05.) I'd expect about one out of every few dozen studies to have a false conclusion. If a=0.01, then I'd expect one out of every hundred studies to have a false conclusion. For data collection, there is no One Big Study that proves or disproves a binary statement (not a theory, but a yes/no matter of is something happening). One study showing global cooling, and a thousand showing global warming? Hmm, seems that global warming is happening. The small proportion of studies not showing GW is expected in all science.
21-09-2016 09:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay, I just asked my biology professor. He said that supporting data is important in science, since it shows that tests were done that could have disproven it. Refute that.

He's wrong. Even if the observation fails to falsify a theory, the observation is not science. Neither does it become supporting evidence.
jwoodward48 wrote:
"Science cares nothing for observations and captures none of them. The scientific method cares only for falsifying data/observations and cares nothing for any "supporting" data/observations."

You just contradicted yourself. Science is the application of the scientific method. The scientific method is the foundation of science. If the scientific method "cares" about something, then science also "cares" about it

Science is NOT the application of the scientific method. You have it backwards. The scientific method is a result of science.
jwoodward48 wrote:
And furthermore, there is a margin of error for studies. (Let's take a=0.05.) I'd expect about one out of every few dozen studies to have a false conclusion. If a=0.01, then I'd expect one out of every hundred studies to have a false conclusion. For data collection, there is no One Big Study that proves or disproves a binary statement (not a theory, but a yes/no matter of is something happening). One study showing global cooling, and a thousand showing global warming? Hmm, seems that global warming is happening. The small proportion of studies not showing GW is expected in all science.

These are not margins of error. You can't just choose the margin of error.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 13:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
jwoodward48 wrote: Okay, I just asked my biology professor. He said that supporting data is important in science, since it shows that tests were done that could have disproven it. Refute that.


Did your biology professor then point out to you ANY science models that contains observations and/or supporting data? Please post those. I've been looking for those.

Did you ever get around to finding the Global Warming equation? What about the "Climate" function? What about the Global Warming data file? I'm dying to see all of those.

Btw, do you have any more "greenhouse effect" scenarios you'd like to bounce off of Stefan-Boltzmann and the 1st LoT?



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 13:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
jwoodward48 wrote:You just contradicted yourself. Science is the application of the scientific method.

Negative. Go back and read the OP in the "Clarification" thread.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 13:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
jwoodward48 wrote: More terms, as I cannot understand how the scientific elimination of untrue theories via observation is somehow... not science.


How does one "scientifically" eliminate an untrue theory as opposed to regularly eliminating an untrue theory?

If an observation falsifies a model then that observation is clearly not "supporting evidence."

What you are describing is the scientific method as I described it in the OP of the "Clarification" thread.

Rather than ask all these stupid questions, why don't you just read the OP in the "Clarification" thread?

Oh, that's right. You did read it and your "disagree with those who understand the topic"-mode kicked in. I remember that. You immediately "proposed" your own bonehead gibberish. You clearly aren't interested in rational discussion or debate.

------
So, onto other topics ...


Did you ever find ANY science models that contains observations and/or supporting data? Please post those. I've been looking for those.

Did you ever get around to finding the Global Warming equation? What about the "Climate" function? What about the Global Warming data file? I'm dying to see all of those.

Btw, do you have any more "greenhouse effect" scenarios you'd like to bounce off of Stefan-Boltzmann and the 1st LoT?
------



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 14:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You proposed a definition and summary of science. I found it lacking and added another. Because I did not accept your definition as the Word of God, I am not engaging in rational debate. Reeeeeaaaaally. Tell me more.

1. Science is more than its models.
2. Until there is a Geology equation, this question will continue to be stupid.

SB does not apply to aggregate systems or gases. You cannot use it there.
21-09-2016 14:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
jwoodward48 wrote: Because I did not accept your definition as the Word of God, I am not engaging in rational debate. Reeeeeaaaaally. Tell me more.

Your hyperbole aside, this is fairly accurate. You are scientifically illiterate and should be taking notes on what I tell you. I write "should" but I realize you cannot because you are owned by a fanatical religious cult that has control of your cognitive functions.

I have no desire to take away your religion. I just want to discuss science.


jwoodward48 wrote: 1. Science is more than its models.

Nope. The body of science is the set of all the falsifiable models that predict nature that have not yet been proven false. I realize that to you it's a religion and you perceive it to be like the Christian "God", i.e. all wise, all powerful, to be feared and worshiped, etc..

It's just a set of models.


jwoodward48 wrote: 2. Until there is a Geology equation, this question will continue to be stupid.

There are plenty of falsifiable geology models. Are you finally acknowledging the absence of any Global Warming science? If not, post the model(s) here in this thread.


jwoodward48 wrote:SB does not apply to aggregate systems or gases. You cannot use it there.

Your science denial is just a convenient way of saying that science is bursting your bubble and you don't want to face it.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 16:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Because I did not accept your definition as the Word of God, I am not engaging in rational debate. Reeeeeaaaaally. Tell me more.

Your hyperbole aside, this is fairly accurate. You are scientifically illiterate and should be taking notes on what I tell you. I write "should" but I realize you cannot because you are owned by a fanatical religious cult that has control of your cognitive functions.

I have no desire to take away your religion. I just want to discuss science.


Assertion, bulverism, insult. Ignoring.

jwoodward48 wrote: 1. Science is more than its models.

Nope. The body of science is the set of all the falsifiable models that predict nature that have not yet been proven false. I realize that to you it's a religion and you perceive it to be like the Christian "God", i.e. all wise, all powerful, to be feared and worshiped, etc..

It's just a set of models.


No, it's the method by which those models are created and testing, and in addition the bodies of data, theories, laws, and models. Do you have a source for your assertion?

[quote
jwoodward48 wrote: 2. Until there is a Geology equation, this question will continue to be stupid.

There are plenty of falsifiable geology models. Are you finally acknowledging the absence of any Global Warming science? If not, post the model(s) here in this thread.[/quote]

And there are plenty of falsifiable climate models. They predict warming. We measure warming. Tested, done.

I can't post the model here any more than I could post the Standard Model of particle physics here.

jwoodward48 wrote:SB does not apply to aggregate systems or gases. You cannot use it there.

Your science denial is just a convenient way of saying that science is bursting your bubble and you don't want to face it.[/quote]

Bulverism. Ignoring.

You do realize that I ignore everything that you use to insult me, right? If you want me to hear you, you should stop insulting me/using bulverism.

Why would S-B, which follows from Planck's Law, apply to gases, if Planck's Law does not? (Emission spectra, damn you, emission spectra! They don't follow Planck's Law!) You can deny it all you like, but...

and yet it warms


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
21-09-2016 16:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
1) Goal of science is the obtaining and systematizing of knowledge of natural phenomena.

2) The domain of science is that part of nature not solely restricted to the human mind.

3) The basis of all science is the accurate description of natural phenomena.

4) The experimental method for determining causal relations involves altering one condition (independent variable), while keeping all others constant (controlled variables), and noting the outcome (dependent variable). The results must be reproducible.

5) The scientific questions asked at any one time depend on available knowledge, resources, and the intellectual and social climate.

6) One of the standard ways for obtaining verifiable information is by the question-hypothesis-deduction-test procedures, or the hypothetico-deductive method. Scientific hypotheses are: 1) predictive and 2) testable (falsifiable).

7) The statements of science are those that have not been falsified.

8) The art of discovery is the ability to see relationships among disparate phenomena.

9) Science is a self-correcting enterprise, which means that over time its statements become evermore probable.

10) The synthesis of scientific information involves uniting isolated observations and hypotheses as conceptual schemes or theories.

11) Complex phenomena can be better understood in terms of simpler phenomena but simpler phenomena have limited usefulness in predicting more complex phenomena.

12) Scientist are human beings, involved in a social enterprise.


source

See? A source that isn't Wikipedia.
21-09-2016 16:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
jwoodward48 wrote: Assertion, bulverism, insult. Ignoring.

You're not ignoring it if you are responding to it. Try just not posting.

jwoodward48 wrote: And there are plenty of falsifiable climate models. They predict warming. We measure warming. Tested, done.

I can't post the model here any more than I could post the Standard Model of particle physics here.

That's because you can't post what doesn't exist.

jwoodward48 wrote: Bulverism. Ignoring.

Must you respond to everything you wish to ignore?

jwoodward48 wrote: You do realize that I ignore everything that you use to insult me, right?

I could only wish. You respond to everything except EASY, straightforward questions.

jwoodward48 wrote: If you want me to hear you, you should stop insulting me/using bulverism.

I don't care whatsoever if you hear me. You aren't interested in listening. You aren't interested in learning anything. You aren't interested in rational discussion.

You're only interested in responding to perceived insults.

jwoodward48 wrote: Why would S-B, which follows from Planck's Law, apply to gases, if Planck's Law does not? (Emission spectra, damn you, emission spectra! They don't follow Planck's Law!)

Stefan-Boltzmann and Planck's apply to bodies and all gases/atmosphere included.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 17:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann and Planck's apply to bodies and all gases/atmosphere included.

It doesn't matter how many times you assert this: reality doesn't agree with you. Emission spectra exist.
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Basic arithmetic:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact