The problem with Night's way of arguing

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > The problem with Night's way of arguing

The problem with Night's way of arguing28-01-2019 05:54
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	I've come here to learn more about the earth's climate and what's likely to happen in the future. Now I've encountered Night, obviously, and I've had my share of frustration arguing with him or her (going with him for now, apologies if incorrect). I have the very strong sense that his way of arguing is aimed at shooting down any meaningful discussion so as to prevent any conclusions to be drawn. He accomplishes this by insisting on very strict mathematical definitions for things. For example, his definition of science is such that "science" has no power of prediction whatsoever. This is so far from how everyone else uses this word that it is hard to have a discussion. I've already started watching my language a bit closer, for example emphasizing that I talk about a "global average temperature estimate" rather than the shorter "global temperature" that he is right, is not technically correct. Another example is the phrase "climate change". Irrespective of whether it's happening or not, I think everyone has a pretty good understanding what that would mean: Seeing everywhere on the planet more or less frequently weather patterns that are significantly different from those seen in the past, putting stress on an ecosystem that evolved for those previous weather patterns. That is not a watertight, mathematically correct definition, and neither is it necessary or helpful for communication. Night's arguments feel like technicalities, like an obviously guilty person avoiding jail through some minor glitch in the law. I agree that every now and then it is a good idea to question what we actually mean when we use words. However, it is possible to bog down any meaningful discussion through a repeated nitpicking. That is what Night is doing to save his Church of Night's right.
28-01-2019 15:15
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Actually, never mind, I'm out of here to a place where those of us who see an issue can discuss how we'll deal with it. Come join us once you're ready to accept that we'll have to change some things. It might just end up being fun to learn how to bend that CO2 footprint to zero tonnes.
28-01-2019 17:28
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	littleendian wrote: Actually, never mind, I'm out of here to a place where those of us who see an issue can discuss how we'll deal with it. Come join us once you're ready to accept that we'll have to change some things. It might just end up being fun to learn how to bend that CO2 footprint to zero tonnes. Your frustrations with Nighmare are held at least by me. I don't mind arguing with you or trying to explain something but with him he is a complete lost cause. Visible light doesn't warm things it only causes chemical changes in the atmosphere? I am quite sure after reading that from him that next thing he will tell us the world is flat. With every posting now he is becoming more and more insane so you shouldn't even bother reading anything he has to say. He doesn't even know the most basic things about science. He can't present anything from a mathematical point of view because he doesn't understand mathematics. The worst part is that he has no interest in actually learning anything - he want to prove you or I wrong and will say absolutely anything to do so. When he's telling me about how I don't know my own city airport when I watched them filling in the bay to build it I finally realized that he has some serious mental issues. Well he is teaching Gasguzzler to be crazy as well.
28-01-2019 18:33
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	I don't mind people being skeptical, actually I expect everyone to be skeptical. But somewhere there is a line where skepticism becomes paranoia and it starts to feel like there is no longer a productive conversation taking place. When it becomes about "being right" rather than finding the truth. That is the Nightmare haunting these forums.
28-01-2019 18:56
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	littleendian wrote: I've come here to learn more about the earth's climate and what's likely to happen in the future. Now I've encountered Night, obviously, and I've had my share of frustration arguing with him or her (going with him for now, apologies if incorrect). I have the very strong sense that his way of arguing is aimed at shooting down any meaningful discussion so as to prevent any conclusions to be drawn. He accomplishes this by insisting on very strict mathematical definitions for things. For example, his definition of science is such that "science" has no power of prediction whatsoever. This is so far from how everyone else uses this word that it is hard to have a discussion. I've already started watching my language a bit closer, for example emphasizing that I talk about a "global average temperature estimate" rather than the shorter "global temperature" that he is right, is not technically correct. Another example is the phrase "climate change". Irrespective of whether it's happening or not, I think everyone has a pretty good understanding what that would mean: Seeing everywhere on the planet more or less frequently weather patterns that are significantly different from those seen in the past, putting stress on an ecosystem that evolved for those previous weather patterns. That is not a watertight, mathematically correct definition, and neither is it necessary or helpful for communication. Night's arguments feel like technicalities, like an obviously guilty person avoiding jail through some minor glitch in the law. I agree that every now and then it is a good idea to question what we actually mean when we use words. However, it is possible to bog down any meaningful discussion through a repeated nitpicking. That is what Night is doing to save his Church of Night's right. He's just a Troll. Best utterly ignored. That's what I do 99% of the time.

28-01-2019 19:08
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	littleendian wrote: I don't mind people being skeptical, actually I expect everyone to be skeptical. But somewhere there is a line where skepticism becomes paranoia and it starts to feel like there is no longer a productive conversation taking place. When it becomes about "being right" rather than finding the truth. That is the Nightmare haunting these forums. I have spent 50 years in science and 40 of those in fairly important positions. I have a far better idea of what is going on and you don't seem to me to have that sort of knowledge. When you are willing to take an "expert's" advice on something and you judge an expert by his position you are in for a rude awakening. One of the last firms I worked for I was a consultant. I was making a LOT of money and was giving them their full money's worth. Except for the three electronics techicians no one in the company know what the hell they were doing so I was training everyone from the assembly line to the draftsman to the man who was supposed to be my manager. All of them were competent but none of them had experience at what they were trying to do. I finally had one problem I couldn't solve. And I brought in a world famous analog engineer. He showed me that I had done everything right but had not mechanically isolated a microphone and so the intercom system to a security gate was picking up enough extraneous noise that you couldn't understand the truck driver. We fixed that and I was then working on a system to identify every single shipping container in the world. The board of directors thought that they could get my friend in a lot cheaper than me. So they fired me and offered him the job. He is a great analog designer with 3 Emmy awards of his own and the company he works for earned another. But he couldn't manage the change in his pocket. And he knew it. So when they offered him the job he wanted to know where I was. When they told him that they had let me go he stood up and walked out the door. They went broke within two months. It isn't enough just to know what you should do - you should always be willing to go the extra mile to do the best you can for even the dumbest job like this one was. I was working at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories for the military on a poison gas detector. The number of errors their research team made couldn't be counted and this was a project to save people's lives. I finally had to work the entire problem out from the start to discover their mistakes and correct them. In the process I ended up getting poison gas burns in my lungs because they failed to make any safety margin for the pump out time for the gas chamber. It was MY fault for trying to cut corners and assuming that they would have added a safety margin on the pump-out times. But it was their fault that they never even considered that it is normal procedure to always allow twice the time for anything that is a safety issue. The project was properly working when I left for a better job. I designed and programmed the machines that were used to identify HIV and how that was what caused AIDS. I worked on anti-cancer detectors and treatment devices. I designed and programmed liquid and gas chromatographs. I am not bragging about this. I am telling you that I have been working in science for the better part of my life and I do NOT have the sort of respect for most of these people that you do. I've found that only one in 50 working scientists can be trusted to actually work on a project to which they are assigned. I have seen people in a lab that handles Plague bacteria eating a F-ing sandwich with his gloves still on!
28-01-2019 20:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	littleendian wrote: I've come here to learn more about the earth's climate and what's likely to happen in the future. Now I've encountered Night, obviously, and I've had my share of frustration arguing with him or her (going with him for now, apologies if incorrect). I'm a him. littleendian wrote: I have the very strong sense that his way of arguing is aimed at shooting down any meaningful discussion so as to prevent any conclusions to be drawn. The conclusions are already drawn. The 1st and 2nd laws and the Stefan-Boltzmann law are existing theories of science. Probability and statistical mathematics are already valid and useful branches of mathematics. You deny them all. littleendian wrote: He accomplishes this by insisting on very strict mathematical definitions for things. No, science is not defined by math. It is defined by philosophy. So is math, BTW. So is religion. littleendian wrote: For example, his definition of science is such that "science" has no power of prediction whatsoever. It doesn't. It uses math (and sometimes logic) to gain that power. littleendian wrote: This is so far from how everyone else uses this word that it is hard to have a discussion. Since you deny science and mathematics in favor of the Church of Global Warming fundamentalism, it is YOU that is having a hard time. Everyone that believes this stuff will. littleendian wrote: I've already started watching my language a bit closer, for example emphasizing that I talk about a "global average temperature estimate" rather than the shorter "global temperature" that he is right, is not technically correct. Neither is technically correct. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to 'estimate' the temperature of the Earth. Changing your argument use 'estimating' changes nothing. littleendian wrote: Another example is the phrase "climate change". Irrespective of whether it's happening or not, I think everyone has a pretty good understanding what that would mean: Then define it. littleendian wrote: Seeing everywhere on the planet more or less frequently weather patterns that are significantly different from those seen in the past, Weather patterns change by the hour, every day. It's called 'weather'. littleendian wrote: putting stress on an ecosystem that evolved for those previous weather patterns. Since weather and weather patterns change every hour and every day, there is no such ecosystem. littleendian wrote: That is not a watertight, mathematically correct definition, and neither is it necessary or helpful for communication. Using buzzwords is not communication. littleendian wrote: Night's arguments feel like technicalities, like an obviously guilty person avoiding jail through some minor glitch in the law. No, it IS the law. It is the theories and laws of existing science. YOU are trying to evade them. littleendian wrote: I agree that every now and then it is a good idea to question what we actually mean when we use words. No, you don't. That is obvious. littleendian wrote: However, it is possible to bog down any meaningful discussion through a repeated nitpicking. Yes it is. However, it is also possible to bog down any meaningful discussion through the use of buzzwords, void arguments, and other fallacies. littleendian wrote: That is what Night is doing to save his Church of Night's right. I am not preaching any religion. YOU are. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-01-2019 20:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	littleendian wrote: Actually, never mind, I'm out of here to a place where those of us who see an issue can discuss how we'll deal with it. Seeya. littleendian wrote: Come join us once you're ready to accept that we'll have to change some things. It might just end up being fun to learn how to bend that CO2 footprint to zero tonnes. Then plants will die. They need CO2. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-01-2019 20:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Wake wrote: littleendian wrote: Actually, never mind, I'm out of here to a place where those of us who see an issue can discuss how we'll deal with it. Come join us once you're ready to accept that we'll have to change some things. It might just end up being fun to learn how to bend that CO2 footprint to zero tonnes. Your frustrations with Nighmare are held at least by me. I don't mind arguing with you or trying to explain something but with him he is a complete lost cause. Bulverism fallacy. Wake wrote: Visible light doesn't warm things it only causes chemical changes in the atmosphere? No, it causes chemical changes. It is not necessarily in the atmosphere. Wake wrote: I am quite sure after reading that from him that next thing he will tell us the world is flat. Why do you idiots keep turning to that cliche? Even the ancient Greeks knew the world was round. Wake wrote: With every posting now he is becoming more and more insane Psychoquackery. Wake wrote: so you shouldn't even bother reading anything he has to say. Bulverism fallacy. Wake wrote: He doesn't even know the most basic things about science. No, that would be YOU, Wake. Inversion fallacy. Wake wrote: He can't present anything from a mathematical point of view because he doesn't understand mathematics. I already have. It is YOU that doesn't understand mathematics, Wake. Inversion fallacy. Wake wrote: The worst part is that he has no interest in actually learning anything I have an intense interest in learning things. That's why I have learned so many things. Wake wrote: - he want to prove you or I wrong I've already done that, Wake. You deny the science and mathematics that proves you wrong. Wake wrote: and will say absolutely anything to do so. I don't make up these theories or mathematics, Wake. You just deny them. Wake wrote: When he's telling me about how I don't know my own city airport when I watched them filling in the bay to build it I finally realized that he has some serious mental issues. Still stuck on that, eh? Did you read a map yet? Perhaps you have trouble with using a compass. Wake wrote: Well he is teaching Gasguzzler to be crazy as well. Oh...so let's throw MORE insults around. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-01-2019 20:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Tim the plumber wrote: littleendian wrote: I've come here to learn more about the earth's climate and what's likely to happen in the future. Now I've encountered Night, obviously, and I've had my share of frustration arguing with him or her (going with him for now, apologies if incorrect). I have the very strong sense that his way of arguing is aimed at shooting down any meaningful discussion so as to prevent any conclusions to be drawn. He accomplishes this by insisting on very strict mathematical definitions for things. For example, his definition of science is such that "science" has no power of prediction whatsoever. This is so far from how everyone else uses this word that it is hard to have a discussion. I've already started watching my language a bit closer, for example emphasizing that I talk about a "global average temperature estimate" rather than the shorter "global temperature" that he is right, is not technically correct. Another example is the phrase "climate change". Irrespective of whether it's happening or not, I think everyone has a pretty good understanding what that would mean: Seeing everywhere on the planet more or less frequently weather patterns that are significantly different from those seen in the past, putting stress on an ecosystem that evolved for those previous weather patterns. That is not a watertight, mathematically correct definition, and neither is it necessary or helpful for communication. Night's arguments feel like technicalities, like an obviously guilty person avoiding jail through some minor glitch in the law. I agree that every now and then it is a good idea to question what we actually mean when we use words. However, it is possible to bog down any meaningful discussion through a repeated nitpicking. That is what Night is doing to save his Church of Night's right. He's just a Troll. Best utterly ignored. That's what I do 99% of the time. Science and mathematics isn't a 'troll', dude. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-01-2019 20:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Wake wrote: littleendian wrote: I don't mind people being skeptical, actually I expect everyone to be skeptical. But somewhere there is a line where skepticism becomes paranoia and it starts to feel like there is no longer a productive conversation taking place. When it becomes about "being right" rather than finding the truth. That is the Nightmare haunting these forums. I have spent 50 years in science and 40 of those in fairly important positions. I don't believe you, Wake. Wake wrote: I have a far better idea of what is going on and you don't seem to me to have that sort of knowledge. You have already demonstrated that you don't have that sort of knowledge. Wake wrote: When you are willing to take an "expert's" advice on something and you judge an expert by his position you are in for a rude awakening. What? That you are not an expert? Wake wrote: One of the last firms I worked for I was a consultant. Temp agency, eh? Wake wrote: I was making a LOT of money and was giving them their full money's worth. I don't believe you. ...deleted remaining storytelling... You've thrown BS out like this before, Wake. You have already shown that you don't know the first thing about electronics, electricity, or even software. You deny science. You don't know it or where it comes from. You can't even keep track of people you meet on this forum or find yourself on a map. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-01-2019 02:27
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: littleendian wrote: I don't mind people being skeptical, actually I expect everyone to be skeptical. But somewhere there is a line where skepticism becomes paranoia and it starts to feel like there is no longer a productive conversation taking place. When it becomes about "being right" rather than finding the truth. That is the Nightmare haunting these forums. I have spent 50 years in science and 40 of those in fairly important positions. I don't believe you, Wake. Wake wrote: I have a far better idea of what is going on and you don't seem to me to have that sort of knowledge. You have already demonstrated that you don't have that sort of knowledge. Wake wrote: When you are willing to take an "expert's" advice on something and you judge an expert by his position you are in for a rude awakening. What? That you are not an expert? Wake wrote: One of the last firms I worked for I was a consultant. Temp agency, eh? Wake wrote: I was making a LOT of money and was giving them their full money's worth. I don't believe you. ...deleted remaining storytelling... You've thrown BS out like this before, Wake. You have already shown that you don't know the first thing about electronics, electricity, or even software. You deny science. You don't know it or where it comes from. You can't even keep track of people you meet on this forum or find yourself on a map. I am really upset that you don't believe me. That just breaks my heart. Especially someone that thinks that fossil fuels aren't fossils.
30-01-2019 03:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: littleendian wrote: I don't mind people being skeptical, actually I expect everyone to be skeptical. But somewhere there is a line where skepticism becomes paranoia and it starts to feel like there is no longer a productive conversation taking place. When it becomes about "being right" rather than finding the truth. That is the Nightmare haunting these forums. I have spent 50 years in science and 40 of those in fairly important positions. I don't believe you, Wake. Wake wrote: I have a far better idea of what is going on and you don't seem to me to have that sort of knowledge. You have already demonstrated that you don't have that sort of knowledge. Wake wrote: When you are willing to take an "expert's" advice on something and you judge an expert by his position you are in for a rude awakening. What? That you are not an expert? Wake wrote: One of the last firms I worked for I was a consultant. Temp agency, eh? Wake wrote: I was making a LOT of money and was giving them their full money's worth. I don't believe you. ...deleted remaining storytelling... You've thrown BS out like this before, Wake. You have already shown that you don't know the first thing about electronics, electricity, or even software. You deny science. You don't know it or where it comes from. You can't even keep track of people you meet on this forum or find yourself on a map. ...deleted insults... No argument presented, Wake. You are just insulting people now. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate The problem with Night's way of arguing:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Arguing for the sake of arguing	1	14-05-2017 01:07