Noam Chomsky, a full professor of LINGUISTICS!!

[BaalChatzaf]

There are too many elements operating in nature for anything more than speculation. Hell, they can't even predict the weather for the next week better than an educated guess.

Michael

Weather is inherently chaotic (in the technical sense). Climate is weather averaged over longish cycles so it is bound to be smoother and better behaved.

Have a look at this: http://www.youtube.c...c/0/52KLGqDSAjo

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited January 29, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I started listening but I stopped.

Here's the opening message I heard (in a snooty tone of voice): "No... I'm not going to do as these idiots do, and those idiots do, and those other idiots do, or even those other idiots do... I'm going to talk about science, the God of the Universe."

Another scientist acting like a monkey to me. I've seen too many of them to care.

I don't really care what he says. With a start like that, it's going to be so agenda-driven that it will be a huge mental effort to unpack any value (if there is any)--too much BS to clean off.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

I started listening but I stopped.

Here's the opening message I heard (in a snooty tone of voice): "No... I'm not going to do as these idiots do, and those idiots do, and those other idiots do, or even those other idiots do... I'm going to talk about science, the God of the Universe."

The Voice of Science is as close to hearing the Voice of God that you ever will.

There are the physical sciences and their companion mathematics. There is engineering and the applied sciences. Then there is the rest; stamp collecting and tiddlywinks.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

The Voice of Science is as close to hearing the Voice of God that you ever will.

There are the physical sciences and their companion mathematics. There is engineering and the applied sciences. Then there is the rest; stamp collecting and tiddlywinks.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob,

There are more things...than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Who's doing the engineering and stamp-collecting? Robots?

You heard of P.E.O.P.L.E.?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Maybe you are right.

Maybe all scientists agree with each other, sing Kumbaya at scientific conventions, praise each other to the skies in publications and not one is filled with hot air.

That's so close to God that I am almost ashamed of myself for not seeing it.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

Maybe you are right.

Maybe all scientists agree with each other, sing Kumbaya at scientific conventions, praise each other to the skies in publications and not one is filled with hot air.

That's so close to God that I am almost ashamed of myself for not seeing it.

Michael

Actually scientists do not sing Kumbaya and they don't always agree with each other. But one thing they all respect: facts -- the result of experimentation and measurement. Physical science is based on the phenomena, not philosophical prejudices.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

All scientists respect facts?

You mean like with global warming?

Respect for facts is not the phrase I would use for the behavior I have observed from scientists. Respect for government money is more like it.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

All scientists respect facts?

You mean like with global warming?

Respect for facts is not the phrase I would use for the behavior I have observed from scientists. Respect for government money is more like it.

Michael

Unfortunately what passes for "climate science" is not science. It is models crafted to fit what ever data it fits.

I had in mind physics, chemistry, thermodynamics and that sort of REAL physical science plus the areas of engineering and applications based on these real sciences.

Meteorology is on the fringe. Much of meteorology is model based because there is not a good solid theory of weather. Nor is there likely to be any time soon, since weather, by its nature is chaotic (i.e. highly non-linear). Climatology is very dicey.

The first climatologist was Aristotle and his first work on the subject was "On Meteorology". With Aristotle is was pseudo science and the follow ons have not been much better.

The problem with meteorology and climatology is that there is much more data than underlying physical cause. Climate and weather, by their nature are very complicated phenomena so there is nothing like the basic theory of particles and fields for climate and weather right now.l

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

That's odd. I thought you linked to a video on climate change where a Next-Best-Thing-To-God Scientist was lecturing the unwashed masses of humanity on how great he is.

Now you say climate change is not science after all.

I agree with that.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Bob should change his last name to Stadler. His constant complaints that physics and engineering are all that matter and man's highest possessions remind me of Antoine Lavoisier, the father of modern chemistry, discoverer of oxygen and hydrogen, who was executed during the Reign of Terror, condemned by a judge who declared "The Republic needs neither scientists nor chemists; the course of justice can not be delayed."

There are objective concepts the possession of which are of value to man outside and even above those of the physical sciences.

[caroljane]

(I felt like Clarence of George being pushed head first into a malmsey butt)

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob, I know you are very literal and precise, so I am sure you want to correct this to "I felt like George of Clarence being pushed butt first into a malmsey head."

Delicious with haggis!

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

That's odd. I thought you linked to a video on climate change where a Next-Best-Thing-To-God Scientist was lecturing the unwashed masses of humanity on how great he is.

Now you say climate change is not science after all.

I agree with that.

Michael

However the narrator of that video separated out the hype from the verified data. Science starts with the data and the phenomena.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

However the narrator of that video separated out the hype from the verified data. Science starts with the data and the phenomena.

Bob,

Really?

He sure started with a steaming pile.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

However the narrator of that video separated out the hype from the verified data. Science starts with the data and the phenomena.

Bob,

Really?

He sure started with a steaming pile.

Michael

He provided all the references in the refereed journals. He discounted the hype of the politicians. Are you sure your saw the same video of which I am speaking. That was the first time I saw a video with kosher references into the literature. It was no "steaming pile". We are definitely in a warming period and less heat is currently being radiated out than is being absorbed. The real question is this: Is the warming due to human activity or is it due to other natural drivers?

As you you know we had warming eras in the past. For example before the Little Ice Age, there was a warming period during which Greenland was actually green. And this was way before major fossil burning industries had been built. So we know there have been warming periods having nothing to do with industries and burning of fossil fuels.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[william.scherk]

However the narrator of that video separated out the hype from the verified data. Science starts with the data and the phenomena.

Really?

He sure started with a steaming pile.

Did you watch the video beyond the first thirteen seconds, Michael? If so, you missed a reasonable, balanced report (for the most part) that identifies the basics of the work that led to both global warming 'proponents' and 'skeptics.'

The video is by a journalist named Peter Hadfield. He wrote for some years for Private Eye and Punch, and was a correspondent for New Scientist for almost two decades.

You might have been put off by the tone when he told the viewer he would not be featuring Al Gore or environmentalists. The first words of the episode were, "No, I'm not going to give you the latest pronouncements from Al Gore [pictured] on the subject of climate change. Al's not a scientist, let alone a geologist or a climatologist, and neither are these guys [picture of environmental campaigners dressed up in polar bear suits]. However well-meaning they may be, most environmentalists don't know a schist from shinola."

Then he mentioned two other folks whose opinions he wouldn't be relying upon in the video: Rush Limbaugh or Paul Harvey. He stated "This video is about science, and the debate between climate scientists."

I am guessing that this is the point at which you got back to your other duties . . .

The video Bob linked to is the first of series of 12, and steers well clear of propaganda and shilling for the most part. He is neither the kind of scientist whom you deplore (in search of money, racked by greed and marxism, biased to the point of dementia, beats children, acts like a monkey, screams, avoids common sense, is fundamentally dirty) nor the kind of scientist you admire and accept (which type does not exist, apparently).

So, it is unsettling to see you put these indignant, mocking posts up, posts in which you dismiss all science. You don't even seem to have the means of giving an informed appraisal of the material you were pointed to. In other subjects (notably Islam/hatred) you caution against emotionalism and bigotry and seeing-what-only-confirms-fears, and urge careful, rational thought, inquiry, thoughtfulness, a watching brief.

Are you an anti-science bigot? Are you more comprehensive in your knowledge than anyone else interested in AGW issues? Have you decided that there is nothing and no one and not one iota of information that we need glance at before coming to conclusions?

I hope not. But what are we to think of your conclusions? It appears you hold that 'the science' is shit, all of it, yet you caution against this very kind of thinking (all Islam is shit) in other venues.

Why the apparent inconsistency?

It seems you didn't like Hadfield's tone in the first seconds of one episode of a long analysis, thus it's all BS, no value, not worth your time, a steaming pile. And you seem to want to browbeat Bob until he admits that you are right . . .

Bob is on the same 'side' of the issue as you are.

It's no wonder you can't see the possibility of rational discussion on anthropogenic global warming on OL. It really looks like you intend to poison the well going in . . . and that your chosen tactic is to caricature and denigrate those whose arguments you reject unseen.

Not your best work, Michael. You do that which you decry in other contexts. Maybe you could stop scolding all the dirty scientists and have a gander at Hadfield's analysis.

Edited January 30, 2011 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

However the narrator of that video separated out the hype from the verified data. Science starts with the data and the phenomena.

Bob,

Really?

He sure started with a steaming pile.

Michael

Michael,

I only intrude on this thread because it seems here your reactions based on personal empirical experience seem to overwhelm your approach to an impersonal topic. This is because I saw somewhere (pls correct if wrong) that you worked in PR. I did that, well "Corporate Communications" for 15 years, beginning with working in a government office. You seem to react to spin and source first, and to facts second. I can understand that, but the facts remain, whatever the Rumplestiltskins do with them, and I for one am interested in finding them out insofar as is possible.

[Brant Gaede]

Bob,

I started listening but I stopped.

Here's the opening message I heard (in a snooty tone of voice): "No... I'm not going to do as these idiots do, and those idiots do, and those other idiots do, or even those other idiots do... I'm going to talk about science, the God of the Universe."

Another scientist acting like a monkey to me. I've seen too many of them to care.

I don't really care what he says. With a start like that, it's going to be so agenda-driven that it will be a huge mental effort to unpack any value (if there is any)--too much BS to clean off.

Michael

I watched the whole thing. The idea is pump out some facts and pose as an authority and do damage control on the scandal these bozos want us to forget. That snooty British upper-class accent is hard for Americans to take, but I guess for Brits it's all part of being subservient--being kept in their place. This kind of crap isn't text for it'd get ripped to pieces. I concede if it were text the author would make it more elaborate, but that'd have the ironical effect of making it even more vulnerable.

--Brant

just what "side" do you think this guy is on?--he's on Gore's side without Gore--the credibly accused rapist: you know, it's the Russian sleigh ride and the skeptics are the wolves

Edited January 30, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[william.scherk]

I am going to bail on this thread. For me, it's not about Chomsky, not about Gore, not about snootiness and monkeys and screaming and environazis and liars and dirty scheming money-grubbers and British accents and bozos and racists and wolves and crap. I will take Ba'al's last comment and reply on the 'Scientific Fraud becoming endemic?' thread, and I will try to ignore future commentary that uses emotionally-laden epithets and jibes . . .

[Brant Gaede]

I am going to bail on this thread. For me, it's not about Chomsky, not about Gore, not about snootiness and monkeys and screaming and environazis and liars and dirty scheming money-grubbers and British accents and bozos and racists and wolves and crap. I will take Ba'al's last comment and reply on the 'Scientific Fraud becoming endemic?' thread, and I will try to ignore future commentary that uses emotionally-laden epithets and jibes . . .

My grandfather's last book, Adventures In Conservation with Franklin D. Roosevelt, (1988), concluded with a statement worrying about global warming and global cooling. It's part of the green religion that we people are up to no good but the elite will protect the earth from hoi mindless polloi. The fact of the matter is there are some things that can be done about global warming, if need be, at least theorectically, but not the next ice age. Not a thing. We are in an inter-glacial period.

--Brant

I sleep well at night; I don't let the apocalyptics bite

Edited January 30, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I only intrude on this thread because it seems here your reactions based on personal empirical experience seem to overwhelm your approach to an impersonal topic. This is because I saw somewhere (pls correct if wrong) that you worked in PR. I did that, well "Corporate Communications" for 15 years, beginning with working in a government office. You seem to react to spin and source first, and to facts second. I can understand that, but the facts remain, whatever the Rumplestiltskins do with them, and I for one am interested in finding them out insofar as is possible.

Daunce,

Remember when you stumbled across that plagiarism thing, then when you looked it up, it was a lot different than you imagined?

This is one of those things.

In the Objectivist world, there is a stupid contest that people constantly wage: "Which is more important, philosophy or science"? Obviously both are important, neither can be eliminated, and both have impacted human life in countless ways and still do. But the folks engaged in this contest keep on keeping on for some damn reason.

After you have debated the same thing a gazillion times and the same old arguments are served up time and time again, even after a proponent has stated otherwise in a previous discussion, you conclude that people are sticking to an agenda and preaching it for no other reason than keeping their minds closed against common sense. You get tired and impatient.

Here's how I imagine a good discussion should be--even if it gets contentious. If you unpack a complicated argument or idea over a considerable amount of time and arrive at some meaningful insight, it is not only worth it, you start to feel life is sunnier, the roses smell more fragrant, and somehow everyone involved in the discussion got bigger. It's all good.

But when you spend a lot of time unpacking an argument or idea, going into minute details with someone and doing your very best thinking against tricky arguments only to arrive at some triviality at the end--the triviality being the main point the other person is concerned about--you feel betrayed. You feel like you've been jerked around and played with as a toy just to scratch someone's neurotic itch. It makes you angry.

The two biggest premise-level trivialities I have seen in the Objectivist subcommunity are the following:

1. Ayn Rand was wrong versus Ayn Rand was right.

2. Science trumps philosophy versus philosophy trumps science.

People will argue for days and weeks over these things and present the most intricate reasoning they can muster. They will play oneupmanship. They will get together in cliques and try to manipulate the discussion with peer pressure. They will get angry and rude. They will be downright obnoxious to someone asking a simple question. They will high-five each other on their side. They will express contempt for--and cast doubts on the character of--those who disagree with them.

For what?

For the sole purpose of being able to make a snide comment and feeling good about it--this applies to all sides. Ayn Rand was wrong (or right). Yaaaaay! Points scored. Philosophy trumps science (or vice-versa). Yaaaaay! Points scored.

(I make an exception for newbies to this crap because they get hooked in without realizing the sheer pointlessness of the whole ordeal.)

I am at the stage where I believe both situations are hideously irrelevant--not just garden variety irrelevant--to any value of any significance in human existence. As premises, all they do is provide a pretext for a person with too much time on his hands to display vanity and stubbornness and petty name-calling. Nothing more.

Now in the global warming debate, there is a similar mind-game ruling it. On one side you have people claiming (like Chomsky) that "99% of all scientists" yada yada yada, that man is destroying the planet, etc. etc. etc.. On the other side you have people claiming that the first side is corrupt, liars, etc. etc. etc.. Both sides doctor their data, slant their arguments, belittle and scapegoat the other side, and bully listeners into taking one side or the other.

It's all BS.

I tried--right here on OL--to discuss this issue for newbies. This was when the majority of the mainstream didn't know what global warming was--me too. I kept hearing about "global warming," thinking that the core of the earth was somehow heating up or something and was surprised to find out it was about weather. I knew others were like me, so I thought a discussion would be useful. Al Gore's film had recently come out and a refutation film calling it a swindle was just then available online. So I tried to look at the arguments innocently and objectively within the knowledge I had and see if anybody had any input that could help with understanding--not just mine but that of ordinary readers who were like me.

Then all hell broke loose.

You have to read it to believe it.

Some people literally don't talk to each other anymore because of that thread. As you can tell, I am not one to back down from intimidation, and all you got on that thread was intimidation. So this thing drug on and on and on and turned into an ugly mess. Emails flew all over the place. Some people left the forum and others showed up just to bash.

What's worse, none of my questions got answered. I had to research this topic outside the forum simply because I could not trust the information people were presenting. Everyone had an agenda. And--to be honest--my research turned up the same agenda-driven crap everywhere. Finding objective information was extremely difficult, but I found some.

And guess what? Who do you think were the worst at showing their behinds in public? Both scientists and philosophers, that's who.

Everywhere.

I finally came to the conclusion that climate science is still in its infancy, that man makes some serious messes (unlike what is portrayed by one side) but he is not destroying the planet (unlike what is portrayed by the other), that there was butt-loads of money involved and that eventually any real serious messes would be cleaned up as we went along.

So, yes, I am sensitive to the manner of presentation. I've seen too much. It's like the Israel versus Palestine thing. People who discuss this stuff usually want to dominate others, not understand anything.

Now, with this context in mind, imagine what I think when a person presents a video that has the following subtext: science trumps philosophy. And the video starts off by snarkily insinuating that this scientist's brand of science is the only true brand for looking at global warming. Did it make me want to think about the issues and discuss something?

Hell no. It made me want to spit. A ball of sulfur gas bubbled up from my stomach through the back of my throat and popped.

So why do I comment the way I do? Why not ignore it and just let it run?

Basically it's a traffic cop thing. If I don't try to keep a lid on this crap, it will be everywhere. You have no idea what this turns into. And the people who do this stuff make it grow all the time.

Michael

[caroljane]

Michael,

Wow. I'm speechless. Luckily I still have use of hands though.

Now I'll think of you not only as Brother Mike but as Officer Atlas on 24/7 duty at every intersection. And this thread is in Humour--whatever goes on in Dark Places? I hope I never know.

I think you and Kat need a nice, long vacation in the beautiful Maritime provinces of Canada with all your Stuart cousins except Eugene. The only intellectual conflict there occurs at the curling rink.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daunce,

Just to be clear, my objective is not to control anyone.

I only do the traffic cop stuff on OL because Kat and I own it, and it's only to keep the noise coming from the spoilers down to a decent level so that interested folks can talk to each other with a reasonable expectation of a sane conversation.

I've never done this kind of thing in a place where there is free access open to everyone, so it's a learn as you go experience.

There are other choices in how to deal with spoilers. I could bare my chest, thump on it and emit a Tarzan yell. I could do like some other places do--restrict access (or moderate all newcomers) at the outset so I can make sure they toe a party line before I grant them posting privileges. Or I could make the forum invitation only. Etc. etc. etc. But none of that's my nature or interest.

I want as much freedom as possible and an environment where people are not afraid to connect and work out their ideas, so I seek a different route. The best principle I have found so far is balance.

The two themes I mentioned above. the Rand right/wrong brigades and the science versus philosophy mud-wrestling (and the third global warming demolition derby) are balance busters. They attract what I call "preachers." And preachers never want to discuss ideas at root. They want a flock or they want a scapegoat. So they tend to be blind to their surroundings as they snarkily go about their missionary work.

There are actually a few other themes like that, but, in general, they are not nearly as destructive to expressing independent thinking when they flare up.

So when I see crap growing like it has in the past--especially involving these themes, I step up to keep balance. I actually don't mind discussing these themes. Really. If you look, you will see a lot of it happening everyday. But when they spiral out of balance, I do mind watching what they do to the health of the forum for people truly interested in ideas.

It seems like spoilers can't stand watching others sincerely express themselves as they engage in the process of thinking for themselves. It tears them up inside.

Michael

[caroljane]

Daunce,

Just to be clear, my objective is not to control anyone.

I only do the traffic cop stuff on OL because Kat and I own it, and it's only to keep the noise coming from the spoilers down to a decent level so that interested folks can talk to each other with a reasonable expectation of a sane conversation.

I've never done this kind of thing in a place where there is free access open to everyone, so it's a learn as you go experience.

There are other choices in how to deal with spoilers. I could bare my chest, thump on it and emit a Tarzan yell. I could do like some other places do--restrict access (or moderate all newcomers) at the outset so I can make sure they toe a party line before I grant them posting privileges. Or I could make the forum invitation only. Etc. etc. etc. But none of that's my nature or interest.

I want as much freedom as possible and an environment where people are not afraid to connect and work out their ideas, so I seek a different route. The best principle I have found so far is balance.

The two themes I mentioned above. the Rand right/wrong brigades and the science versus philosophy mud-wrestling (and the third global warming demolition derby) are balance busters. They attract what I call "preachers." And preachers never want to discuss ideas at root. They want a flock or they want a scapegoat. So they tend to be blind to their surroundings as they snarkily go about their missionary work.

So when I see crap growing like it has in the past--especially involving these themes, I step up to keep balance. I actually don't mind discussing these themes so, if you look, you will see a lot of it happening everyday. But when they spiral out of balance, I do mind watching what they do to the health of the forum for people truly interested in ideas.

It seems like spoilers can't stand watching others sincerely express themselves as they engage in the process of thinking for themselves. It tears them up inside.

Michael

You know I knew this anyway.

As I said before on another thread, you believe in free speech, and you walk the talk.

Love, Sis

[peterdjones]

Chomsky is a dogmatic materialist. (Kolker should love him.) His claim to fame in linguistics is having discovered that despite the fact that the mind is a myth, man must have some organ which allows him to learn complex grammatical rules without formal coaching. (Never heard of the ability to induce?)

Ever heard of the Poverty of the Stimulus?

Edited March 5, 2011 by peterdjones

[kiaer.ts]

Chomsky is a dogmatic materialist. (Kolker should love him.) His claim to fame in linguistics is having discovered that despite the fact that the mind is a myth, man must have some organ which allows him to learn complex grammatical rules without formal coaching. (Never heard of the ability to induce?)

Ever heard of the Poverty of the Stimulus?

Yes. (1) It is mere assertion - no evidence is offered. (2) It's based on the notion that children would have to hear the specific individual forms repeatedly rather than having the ability with a plastic healthy young mind to induce from general patterns and apply them in new cases. The necessary concept is not some concrete language organ, just the old-fashioned ability to induce and reason implicitly.