Quoting Heather Perella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [SA previously]
> > > Does this help?
>
> [Platt]
> > Well, as best I can tell, you put your trust in what
> > scientists say is the
> > case. But as I'm sure you know, scientists can look
> > at the same data and
> > arrive at different conclusions.
>
> This is called peer review with collected
> samples. Do you have a better way of doing science?
> Secondly, how do you not trust what scientists say?
When scientists disagree, who do you pick? Why?
> What are you bringing to the table that would say
> otherwise?
What table are you talking about?
> Do you have samples/data that you've
> collected?
No. Do you?
>What samples have you recently found to
> counter what scientists say?
Samples of what?
[Platt]
> > For example, recently there was a debate
> > among scientists about whether certain marks in rock
> > samples indicated
> > there was once life on Mars. Also as I'm sure you
> > know, consensus among
> > scientists as to the "facts" have sometimes been
> > proven wrong. An example
> > is the infamous Piltdown Man hoax.
>
> Sure, these have been reversed by looking at the
> samples collected in the field, and also I would also
> question the rock samples that may indicate if life
> was on Mars. As to the latter, what rock samples from
> Mars itself have been collected with fossils to
> compare with the Mars rocks found on Earth. Also, if
> the fossils are embedded in these rocks the other
> question would be how do we know these rocks are from
> Mars? Yet, these are obvious questions that
> scientists inquire about, and I'm sure missions to
> Mars, especially the recent Spirit missions, are
> trying to find rock samples in places that may have
> had life and you can see where that would lead
> scientists. With more and more samples (evidence) the
> questions get answered with possibly more questions to
> answer but the questions about the earth being a
> sphere as opposed to flat have been answered with more
> questions that have lead scientists to ask what this
> sphere is made of, etc... So, what samples do you
> have to discount science?
None. What samples do you have?
> You discount science
> without following scientific methods that would be
> worth challenging what scientists are currently
> working with. Where's your samples?
Samples of what?
> What data do you
> question? And how could the data be interpreted
> differently? Use the data/samples, all of it, to
> point towards your intellectual understanding.
> Science is a process. Use the process to discount or
> support what your saying. This is how science has
> moved on from simply all in your head. Of course
> science questions itself, but with the use of data and
> thought, not just thought, which you seem to be doing.
> I myself don't hold onto science exclusively, but I
> don't fall into the trap you seem to be in where I
> discount everything about science.
Where did you get the idea I discount everything about science.
Are you suggesting scientists should never be questioned?
> [Platt]
> > As to the global
> > warming controversy,
> > politics is involved, casting further suspicion on
> > who has the "facts."
> > When somebody like Barbara Boxer or Ted Kennedy says
> > such and such is the
> > "truth," and therefore we need more control over
> > people's lives, my confidence
> > meter registers zero.
>
> See, you listen to Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy,
> as for me, I'm listening to what scientists say.
You don't listen to what all the scientists say. And yes I do listen to
politicians because they can directly affect my life with their proposed laws.
> You
> question facts in a hypothetical sense, not in an
> actual sense. You don't question any facts directly,
> you just question how facts are being interpreted. In
> science the facts are questioned directly with other
> facts or with the use of the facts to show all the
> possible ways these facts fit together. You just
> question the interpretations of facts. Look at the
> facts and then you can question if the facts are
> reliable or not. As for now, I haven't looked
> directly at all the facts, I rely on the many people
> who have looked at the facts, and I still haven't
> concluded one way or another as to what the final
> conclusion is.
Me neither.
> Is it better to take care of the earth
> than not take care of the earth? Of course, right?
What do you mean, "take care of the earth?
> To log all the trees and kill passenger pigeons to
> kill off whole species of animals and plants. Is that
> taking care of the planet or doing whatever it takes
> to get the $? What do you value?
To log all the trees? What are you talking about?
[Platt]
> > Hope this is responsive. Thanks for the discussion.
>
> Instead of continually asking me questions why
> don't you start answering the questions I've asked
> you?
Because I don't understand you.
> This way we can chat. We can see where each of
> us are coming from, line by line, question by
> question, instead of assuming which you've been doing
> pretty much the whole time we've been discussing. I
> keep asking you where you are getting your conclusions
> and all you do is answer with a: "Well, where do you
> get your conclusions?" This isn't chatting. This is
> called Platt has control issues. I've answered every
> single one of your questions, some long ago, and you
> still haven't paid attention to my answers and like
> the post you had earlier today you say well I've asked
> SA such and such question where I've actually answered
> you with the same responses on different threads just
> to make sure you get my answer, but you don't write
> back topic by topic with answers to my questions. I
> still don't know, as I've said repeatedly why have you
> concluded the way you do about science being a lie?
I have never concluded science being a lie. I have concluded science
is not always right like you seem to think.
> Is it blind faith you trust more where all in your
> head is what you value more? I mean if this latter is
> a yes, at least you've given me an answer. I've told
> you before, I'll respect your chatting with me more if
> you could just answer some of these questions without
> just repeating these same questions back to me.
> What's the deal?
The deal is you are never satisfied with my answers. Do you remember my
referring you to Wikipedia? Why do you ignore my references? More importantly,
why don't you look yourself for scientists who disagree with what you think
is true. Why do you seem to accept without question conventional wisdom? Are
you not curious about opinions other than your own?
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
