[Platt]
> When scientists disagree, who do you pick? Why?
Ok, for example, the global warming issue. Much
of the evidence points towards humans causing the
earth to warm up faster. The increase in different
chemicals in the air and water is an increase greater
than ever before. These same chemicals go directly
into the air and water. We see the smoke stacks and
pipes and know what chemicals are coming out, and
these are the chemicals found in very increased levels
in the air and water. Never have these chemicals been
found to be at such high levels. Can you explain why
these chemical levels are higher than ever before?
You asked what samples? Well, in science you have to
bring data/samples into the discussion to counter
scientific views. As to what is the table? Well,
this is a metaphor for 'where the action is'. So, in
this discussion the action is at the scientific table.
Now, I've asked you if you have philosophical grounds
that quarrel with science or scientific trust v.
distrust, then that's fine. But one can't argue
against what science finds unless when joins the
scientific process to show what other possibilities
data/samples might be suggesting.
[SA previously]
> Do you have samples/data that you've collected?
[Platt]
No. Do you?
---------
No, I don't. That's why I rely upon other
people, scientists, that do.
[SA previously]
>What samples have you recently found to
> counter what scientists say?
[Platt]
Samples of what?
---------
Samples of the chemical content of the air,
water, and ice cores, etc...
[Platt]
Where did you get the idea I discount everything about
science.
Are you suggesting scientists should never be
questioned?
---------
About your first question, I probably was
assuming, my mistake. Referring to your second
question, what I'm saying is that it is very difficult
to question scientists, unless, you have searched all
the data/samples/the 'stuff' gathered in the field,
and made comparisons. To rely upon other scientists,
one would have to go through their objections or
supportive statements and for each reason they give,
they must support their reasons with material
evidence. Not all scientists match their theorizing
with material evidence, and this doops the process.
I've been reading in a book that Gould (a scientist)
wrote called "An Urchin in the Storm". Gould mentions
how some scientists have gotten so wrapped up in the
adaptation in evolutionary explanations that a number
of the 'stories' about evolution just thoughtfully
weave a 'what could have happen at such and such a
time, place, and with this creature' using adaptation
as the explainer, but no material evidence is given to
support their 'story'. This is why I keep asking you
'On what grounds do you counter global warming?'. Is
it philosophical? Or is it scientifically?
[Platt]
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 see. This is how the mixing of science and
politics can become dangerous. Politicians are NOT
scientists. Scientists are NOT politicians. But when
certain questions, such as global warming, would
endanger a whole country, then politicians will have
to trust scientists, the ones that know the evidence.
As to the scientists that are few in number that
oppose global warming, serious consideration would
have to be given as to is their opposition legitimate
or not. And the only way to know is to rely upon
other scientists to look at the opposition and go
through the theorizing and material evidence the
opposition has to see if it's valid opposition. As
long as scientists are following science, then we can
trust that scientists have researched the opposition
to global warming. Unless, as I've pointed out, we
research the material evidence and the corresponding
theories to see how many ways the scenario may work.
I can't just say well, the scientists are arguing with
each other so they MUST not know. I must find out WHY
the scientists are debating, and see if the supporters
and oppositional factions of global warming have done
correct science. See how difficult this is? Just
because a debate is happening, doesn't mean the truth
about global warming is known or unknown.
[Platt]
What do you mean, "take care of the earth?
--------
Keep it clean. Don't just kill off animals and
plants to extinction for $, etc...
[Platt]
To log all the trees? What are you talking about?
-----
The South American rainforest, African
rainforest, India forest, Chinese forest, and Norway's
forest, etc...
[Platt]
> Because I don't understand you.
If you don't understand me, then ask questions,
right?
[Platt]
> I have never concluded science being a lie. I have
concluded science
> is not always right like you seem to think.
Science is not always right, but scientists have
to fix the mess that science makes. Unless we're
going to go through all the material evidence and
theories.
[Platt]
The deal is you are never satisfied with my answers.
Do you remember my referring you to Wikipedia? Why do
you ignore my references?
--------
From what I've said above, when it comes to
science, do you see why I asked you to take the next
step when it comes to questioning science. The next
step is not references, and more references. The next
step is how well are these references comparing the
material evidence and their hypothesis. This is why
it is difficult to question science. I don't have all
the material evidence and theories/hypothesis right in
front of me. I could go through all the oppositional
factions to global warming and see what their reasons
are for their opposition and see if they have any
material evidence to support their reasons, but I
don't have the time and gumption. That would be a lot
of work. Especially, now-a-days, where there is a
huge body of material evidence and access to this
evidence is difficult. I won't know if I've looked at
all the evidence either. I can rely upon charts and
graphs that helps to condense evidence, but I haven't
looked at all the charts and graphs and oppositional
material evidence. Do you know what the material
evidence/samples/data is that those opposed to global
warming have?
[Platt]
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?
--------
Sure I'm curious, and I don't accept conventional
wisdom without question. But I don't accept
oppositional wisdom without the correct methods and
questions. I don't rely upon politicians either, for
did they do the leg work to really find out what
material evidence exists to oppose or support global
warming. When science is questioned, science must be
the questionnaire, unless you are philosophizing about
if scientists are doing correct science or not. Yet,
to this latter (the philosophizing) specific points
must be brought up, one by one, as to why a scientists
is or is not doing correct science. What is the
material evidence and what is the theory? That is the
question to explore.
cloudy,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
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/
