Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 3 hours ago, KorbenDallas said: He talks goblins, starts around 2m 20s. At 4m 09s he talks about Wolf Blitzer objecting to being denied press coverage about Trump, and at 4m 25s he says, "I hope [Trump] moves out of the White House. It's too small, it's not safe [...] Move out of that captured nest, move back in once we've recaptured Washington, but don't move into the middle of the enemy encampment. Move out of there, [because] just spiritually you need to, and all the surveillance, all the spies, all the crap, it's just absolutely horrible [...]." Korben, Not taking up residence in the White House is not a bad idea. Our intelligence communities have been sorely compromised over the last 3 or 4 decades and they are morally in no-man's land. If Snowden and WikiLeaks has not taught you that, nothing will. (Maybe the Snowden leaks were nothing but a conspiracy theory, anyway. Hmmmmm?... ) About your challenges with Alex's goblin metaphor (an activist uses metaphors, oh my God!!! ), I humbly offer a go-go-gobloffering: Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 Let's get a conspiracy theory of our own moving. (Hat tip to our deal darling WSS. Actually, he made it. ) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said: If a scientist is caught fabricating data his reputation will be destroyed. [....] That depends on what kind of science we are talking about. There is real science, for the purpose of finding truth. Then there is bullshit science, for the purpose of marketing a product and the scientists prove what they are paid to prove, fudging the data and whatever else is necessary to prove what they are paid to prove. You can find examples of dishonest science passing as real science if you search msg and aspartame. You will find for example that they surgically removed tumors from the mice and then reported the mice as tumor free. They proved scientifically that there is no difference between msg and placebo, but they put msg in the placebo. You can find many more methods of being dishonest that they used. An older example is tobacco. Would you seriously expect research on the health effects of tobacco funded by a tobacco company to be honest? Can you imagine a tobacco company with a TV ad telling the world: Our research shows that our product is bad for your health. Don't buy our product.? Ditto for a great many multi-billion dollar products. Whenever there is a product to market, a red alert should go off in your head. You might think: government protects you. But government is one of the most corrupt entities on the planet. Often there is a revolving door between the crooked company and the government agency that is supposed to protect you against the company. Do not look to government to protect you. It seems to be almost a law of nature that even when government starts half decent, it gradually evolves toward more and more corruption. Do you know any exception anywhere in the world anytime in history? Government is neither wisdom nor benevolence. Government is the man with the gun. Possession of a gun does not make a man wise or benevolent. If he is wise and benevolent, that is just a lucky coincidence. I don't think there is any need to call dishonest science or the revolving door or corrupt government a conspiracy. It is just plain old dishonesty. Only the paranoid survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 Here's another conspiracy theory: Really makes you think. pic.twitter.com/guFogZa32t— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) November 12, 2016 But... but... but... Co-relation is not causation! It's only a coincidence that Hillary Clinton voters live in high-crime areas. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted November 12, 2016 Author Share Posted November 12, 2016 40 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Korben, Not taking up residence in the White House is not a bad idea. Our intelligence communities have been sorely compromised over the last 3 or 4 decades and they are morally in no-man's land. If Snowden and WikiLeaks has not taught you that, nothing will. MSK, this the appeal to probability fallacy. 40 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: About your challenges with Alex's goblin metaphor I distinguish between metaphor and conflation, Alex was well into conflation territory in the video I posted earlier. After he used goblins, he spoke of Wolf Blitzer which should signal a return to reality in the narrative---instead, he inserted a conspiracy theory that the White House isn't safe... which... you believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 5 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said: ... instead, he inserted a conspiracy theory that the White House isn't safe... which... you believe? Korben, Before Snowden I would not have... Now I think it's plausible, and add plausible to that, albeit not probable. (Especially not with the people Trump will put in charge of the intelligence staff.) The idea moved up, though, from crazy to something to be cautious about. But not to worry. We all know that a syllogism defeats assassination attempts, right? Who needs to look at reality when we have syllogisms to replace it? Aren't you the one who said facts are tools to spin fantasies with? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted November 12, 2016 Author Share Posted November 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Alex, "[...] Move out of that captured nest, move back in once we've recaptured Washington, but don't move into the middle of the enemy encampment. [...] 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Korben, Not taking up residence in the White House is not a bad idea. 12 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Now I think it's plausible, and add plausible to that, albeit not probable. Contradiction? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 Just now, KorbenDallas said: Contradiction? Korben, I don't understand your point. What contradiction? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted November 12, 2016 Author Share Posted November 12, 2016 4 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Korben, I don't understand your point. What contradiction? Michael If it's not probable that the White House isn't safe, then it's okay for Trump to move in, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 Just now, KorbenDallas said: If it's not probable that the White House isn't safe, then it's okay for Trump to move in, no? Korben, Please learn the difference between degree and kind. Probable is a term of degree in this context. Not kind. Probably safe does not mean 100% safe. It's probably safe for Trump to move in, especially if he stays vigilant, but not totally safe. It's like the election fraud thing. By shining a big-ass "plausible" spotlight on the problem right before people were to act, I believe a lot of would-be cheaters decided to wait for the next election. Working with reality can get messy. Logic is supposed to serve that, not replace it. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: [I (ES) wrote: "The list is horridly prolix and repetitive."] But... but... but... it's peer reviewed and written by English academics, fer goddsakes... Don't you know your betters? It would be cute to see a list of measurements of snooty condescending vain attitudes toward normal people by academics, especially academics who study society as if people were cockroaches in Petri dishes. Joe Duarte started the ball rolling (see here for an article by Jonathan Haidt on his political bias in academia paper, much to the chagrin of the tut-tut-tutters) and would be just the man for the job. I don't know Joe except online, and even then at a distance. Let's just say I'm an admirer. Michael I know my betters, but the people who wrote that list aren't in the running. I'd enjoy a comparable list such as you suggest. The website you linked to goes schizzy when I click on it, and I can't read it. Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 15 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said: The website you linked to goes schizzy when I click on it, and I can't read it. Ellen, Here's a PDF of Joe's 2015 paper (he wrote it with 5 other authors). This copy is hosted at Rutgers. Maybe you will be able to read this one. Political diversity will improve social psychological science It's made all the authorized rounds, became quite well-known and well-cited in academia, and made some liberal academic heads explode. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 (edited) Again, truncated from a table ... from certain 'snooty' folk who are probably fools to study conspiracy ideation, and further pose as Reasoners. Pah! he said dismissively. Who reads that schmutz? (more seriously, I want to accord credit to Korben for pleading the Randian side of the aisle, and for bringing forward some readings for the crew on the porch) I've decided to be measured but provocative, and to open up a second front). 7 hours ago, Table of 59 collected conspiracy theories said: Certain chemicals are put in the water supply in order to control the people Experiments involving advanced technologies are carried out on the general public without their knowledge or consent Groups of scientists deliberately attempt to create panic about future risks because it is in their interests to do so Advanced technology is secretly used to placate the people and suppress dissent The government deliberately permits certain terrorist activities to occur to keep the public in a state of fear Progress toward a cure for cancer, AIDS, and other diseases is deliberately being hindered Technology with mind-control capacities is tested on people without their knowledge or consent Some viruses and/or diseases which many people are infected with were created in laboratories as bio-weapons Family planning policies are part of a plot to control and limit certain populations Drugs are deliberately supplied to certain communities in order to marginalize or destroy them New and advanced technology which would harm current industry is being suppressed New and better technology is suppressed by those whose current business would be disrupted by it Groups of scientists ensure that only evidence which supports a pre-determined conclusion is made known to the public Technology is being concealed which is far in advance of what is known to the general public Government funded scientists manipulate evidence in order to support existing government policy The media ensures that only certain information is made known to the public Certain groups of scientists fabricate data in support of a particular scientific theory out of self-interest The government has a large amount of confidential data on every citizen without their knowledge or permission These are such blobs, the Certain Groups and the glistering Government-Funded Scientists, though not as empty/full as Groups of Scientists. With such blob terms it is easy to equivocate, and it is easy to 'set these aside' as common-sense -- but only if you are sitting on a mountain of evidence without counterevidence. It requires no great work to accept these four particular harmful plots keeping 'the truth' from being voiced in Science. It takes an enormous effort to refute. It just reminds me there are a thousand-fold more cranks on the It's A Hoax, Everything Is Fine, No Worries, No Warming, No 'human hand' side of the aisle. As with any such plots, the reason Hansen and Schmidt and all the other advocate-scientists-fiends haven't lost their positions and been drummed out of the business for their crimes of conspiracy ... is both more prosaic and more challenging to stuck-fast opinions. To take these blob items out and class them near Everybody Knows or common sense, it leaves off the table an enormous amount of work done to deconstruct untrue claims. You see, if only actual 'certain groups' are doing something, we can catch them. If a large blob of blobs is doing it, it is much more difficult work. I mean, the Climate Conspiracy extends Everywhere -- every national science body, every last august body of rational inquiry. All those countries infected with the same virus, the same conspiracy. It is the scale of the blob that makes me less inclined to highlight these Four Theories as partially true, as pertaining to Climate Debate. Climate Porn: a bit of warming in the Arctic. No. Big. Deal. -- from a certain group of scientists, reproduced at Discover magazine (infected!) in the guise of an (infected!) blogger. Click the image to read the entire alarmist nonsense in situ ... Yeah. It is alarmist nonsense that so-called 'global warming' is apparent in the Arctic. "Anomaly hunting" as they say ... Edited November 13, 2016 by william.scherk changed attribution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted November 13, 2016 Author Share Posted November 13, 2016 56 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Korben, Please learn the difference between degree and kind. Probable is a term of degree in this context. Not kind. Probably safe does not mean 100% safe. It's probably safe for Trump to move in, especially if he stays vigilant, but not totally safe. It's like the election fraud thing. By shining a big-ass "plausible" spotlight on the problem right before people were to act, I believe a lot of would-be cheaters decided to wait for the next election. Working with reality can get messy. Logic is supposed to serve that, not replace it. Michael Well that's interesting. Alex said Trump shouldn't move into the White House, it is not safe. He didn't say probably not, he said 100% should not: "[...] don't move into the middle of the enemy encampment." His reason, "[...] all the surveillance, all the spies, all the crap [...]" You: "Not taking up residence in the White House is not a bad idea." Your reason, "Our intelligence communities have been sorely compromised over the last 3 or 4 decades and they are morally in no-man's land. If Snowden and WikiLeaks has not taught you that, nothing will"--- affirming Alex. I questioned. You replied, "Now I think it's plausible, and add plausible to that, albeit not probable." At this point I noticed the contradiction by degree---you're not at 100% anymore, now you're at not probable. So I pointed out the contradiction by degree. Now you say, "It's probably safe for Trump to move in, especially if he stays vigilant, but not totally safe." Recap: Then, "Not taking up residence in the White House is not a bad idea." Now, "It's probably safe for Trump to move in [...]" Glad I could help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I sent this backstage to Michael. Glad he liked it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Just now, KorbenDallas said: Alex said Trump shouldn't move into the White House, it is not safe. He didn't say probably not, he said 100% should not... Korben, Until you learn to distinguish the difference between an activist and an academic, you will keep making this gotcha error. Rand said: "Kant is the most evil man in mankind’s history." Was she in academic mode or activist mode when she said that? Think about it. In academic mode, that means he was more evil than Genghis Khan, Nero, Mao Tse-tung, Josef Stalin, etc. Does that sound right to you? In activist mode, she was selling her demonization of anti-reason philosophy. Hyperbole exists. And people use it. A is A. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted November 13, 2016 Author Share Posted November 13, 2016 6 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Korben, Until you learn to distinguish the difference between an activist and an academic, you will keep making this gotcha error. Rand said: "Kant is the most evil man in mankind’s history." Was she in academic mode or activist mode when she said that? Think about it. In academic mode, that means he was more evil than Genghis Khan, Nero, Mao Tse-tung, Josef Stalin, etc. Does that sound right to you? In activist mode, she was selling her demonization of anti-reason philosophy. Hyperbole exists. And people use it. A is A. Michael Hmm, well I don't think Alex is an activist or an academic. False alternative. Alex is a conspiracy theorist. A is A muhahahaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Well, here's some more conspiracy theory from Alex Jones. I study propaganda and he's spot on. Amy Schumer is a tool. I'm not sure she's smart enough to do what they are doing with her. But the covert anti-Trump persuaders are good, I have to hand it to them... Thank goodness we have conspiracy theorists who live and breathe this stuff and sniff it out. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Ellen, Here's a PDF of Joe's 2015 paper (he wrote it with 5 other authors). This copy is hosted at Rutgers. Maybe you will be able to read this one. Political diversity will improve social psychological science It's made all the authorized rounds, became quite well-known and well-cited in academia, and made some liberal academic heads explode. Michael Thanks!! I read it, quickly, just going straight through. I'll reread slowly later, and also the other articles. One section puzzles me: Quote 5.2. The effects of education on political ideology Another explanation for the disproportionate number of liberals in academia is that education per se causes students to become more liberal. For example, many may view ed- ucation as “enlightening” and believe that an enlightened view comports with liberal politics. There is little evidence that education causes students to become more liberal. Instead, several longitudinal studies following tens of thou- sands of college students for many years have concluded that political socialization in college occurs primarily as a function of one’s peers, not education per se (Astin 1993; Dey 1997). These studies show that students become more liberal if they are around liberal peers, and more con- servative if around conservative peers. Even the classic Bennington Study (Newcomb 1943) concluded that it was conformity to liberal norms, more than education per se, that led students to become more liberal. Thus, refer- ence-group norms, more than educational enlightenment, lead people to become more liberal in college. Not to minimize the importance of peer pressure - and the text does say "primarily," not "exclusively" - but having all the liberal stuff dinned into their heads in class after class, combined with grading bias, I would expect to have a bigger effect than is indicated. I got bittersweet amusement from this in the conclusion: Quote 7. Conclusion Psychology was once dominated by behaviorists, who shared a limiting set of assumptions about what constituted psychology. They also controlled nearly all outlets for pro- fessional advancement and scientific communication, and they created a hostile climate toward more cognitively ori- ented psychologists. The stranglehold of behaviorism before the Cognitive Revolution was described by George Miller: “The power, the honors, the authority, the text- books, the money, everything in psychology was owned by the behavioristic school . . . those of us who wanted to be scientific psychologists couldn’t really oppose it. You just wouldn’t get a job” (quoted in Baars 1986, p. 203). Ah, yes, I remember it well, the behaviorist domination. That was one of the two reasons I didn't go on to get a PhD. (The other was that I don't really enjoy teaching, and I happened to get a publishing job while I was taking some night courses still toying with the idea of getting the degree, and I loved the publishing environment. End of academic aspirations.) Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted November 13, 2016 Author Share Posted November 13, 2016 54 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Thank goodness we have conspiracy theorists who live and breathe this stuff and sniff it out. Phew, thank goodness, Alex Jones found that Beyoncé's Lemonade is tied to the CIA: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: If a scientist is caught fabricating data his reputation will be destroyed. I think the problem is not fabrication of data but inferring the worst case consequences of data. Amongst whom? The other scientists also fabricating data--on the same subject? --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 6 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said: It used to be the case - and probably still is in most areas of science - that the reputation of a scientist caught fabricating data would be destroyed. In AGW, the reverse seems to be true. Inferring worst consequences - largely from models - happens also. Ellen The earth climate system is so complicated it can only be dealt through models. Earth is not a simple Black Body. It has land, seas and atmosphere all with different interacting thermodynamic properties. There are two areas in which the theory cannot directly address --- cloud formation and interaction-feedbacks. These are governed by chaotic dynamics, highly non-linear. T he best we can do is model the processes in the light on non-equilibrium thermodynamics That the guys at CERN do with the various fields and particles is kindergarten simple compared to chaotic systems and non-equilibrium thermodynamics. In addition to the theoretical difficulties just getting the data at various scales and various places is extremely difficult. We would have to have extensive data on temperature in the oceans at -all- depths. We know more about the surface of Mars than we do about our oceans at great depth. Then there is cloud formation which is not just a matter of terrestrial processes. Clouds are affected by cosmic rays as well as atmospheric conditions. The result is that our models (and there are many of them) are relatively crude. The boys at IPCC have not got cloud formation down nor do they have a good understanding of oceanic cycles which include El Ninyo and La ninya. There are the decadal oscillations and the flow of the thermo-haline currents. We have miles to go before we really get a grip on Earth climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 39 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said: Not to minimize the importance of peer pressure - and the text does say "primarily," not "exclusively" - but having all the liberal stuff dinned into their heads in class after class, combined with grading bias, I would expect to have a bigger effect than is indicated. Ellen, This is anecdotal, but I went to college (Boston University--a hotbed of leftists back then) as a hippie and came out as a Randian. And man, was there peer pressure against that, from teachers to friends. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 3 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Ellen, This is anecdotal, but I went to college (Boston University--a hotbed of leftists back then) as a hippie and came out as a Randian. And man, was there peer pressure against that, from teachers to friends. Michael What years were you at BU? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Just now, BaalChatzaf said: What years were you at BU? Bob, 1970-1973. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now