Quoting Heather Perella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [Platt]
> > Data is often questioned, such as the bones (data)
> > of Piltdown man.
>
> You misunderstand what data is. Data is the
> material evidence. Information is the interpretation
> of the data. Human beings only interpret the data,
> the material evidence. The material evidence (it is
> assumed doesn't change), it is the interpretation that
> changes. Piltdown man didn't change. The data didn't
> change. It was the interpretation that changed. A
> intelligent fellow went back to Piltdown man and
> reinterpreted what the bones where and discovered the
> hoax. The bones didn't change from hominid to
> different bones (orangutan I believe with other
> bones). It was always a hoax by somebody. It was
> just that others didn't interpret the data correctly.
> Data=material evidence. How did the material evidence
> change with Piltdown man? It is interpretation that
> changed with Piltdown man.
You say "interpretation," I say "questioning." Same difference.
> [Platt]
> > The Princeton studies have been going on for a
> > number of years.
>
> Have other scientists at other schools done
> studies to support or oppose these Princeton studies?
> You can't take the word of one school in the world.
> These studies have to be repeated. That's science.
Most of science doesn't want to study psychic phenomena. They consider it
bogus in advance. Yet it is the contrarians, like Jahn at Princeton and
Einstein in Swwitzerland who make science advance.
[Platt]
> > Do you have data to support your assertion that more
> > people results in more livestock? To stop global
> warming
> > would you favor forcing a reduction in the
> population of
> > either?
>
> I have no numbers, no data. I just assume that
> with more mouths to feed that more domesticated
> animals will need to be present. Isn't it that
> simple? As to what to do about human population
> increase, I don't know. India has a good
> contraception program that is turning around their
> population increase. China only allows 1 child per
> family. I really don't like when 'things' get to the
> point where government has to step in.
Me neither. As regards global climate, they are certainly not at that point.
> [Platt]
> > Seems this whole series of posts began because you
> > had concluded that humans are responsible for global
> warming. I'm
> > I wrong?
>
> There is evidence to support that humans are the
> cause. I haven't know from the beginning with 100%
> certainty which way to take this. I do advocate clean
> air and water, which since the early 1900's much has
> been done to do this. My grandfather talked about how
> he had to change shirts in the middle of the day in
> Pittsburgh due to so much dirt in the air from the
> smoke stacks from the steel factories. His shirt
> would turn black. It is not like that anymore. But
> it is not recommended that anybody eat the fish in the
> waters surrounding the city. I've seen pipes coming
> out from some of the surrounding towns that let
> discolored fluids into the local creeks and river.
> It's definitely not water or kool-aid. A local creek
> with all the factories along it is known as one of the
> most polluted creeks in the country, and eating any
> stocked fish from it is not recommend. I'm big on
> keeping forests intact, etc... As for global warming,
> all's I've said is the evidence and majority of the
> scientists say it's happening. You say it's not, and
> I've continually for many posts asked you why you
> agree with the FEW and not the MANY scientists. STILL
> NO ANSWER. I even told you some posts back don't
> assume what I think.
I don't think good science relies on counting heads to establish
scientific facts. History is replete with examples of scientific
consensus that turned out to be wrong. That's my answer.
[Platt]
> No. I'm saying the cause of global warming is not
> settled. So don't use
> the issue as an excuse to increase government control
> over our lives.
>
> -------
> I gave up on government years ago, and have been
> giving my silent vote for years. It is my voice in
> protest. So, I'm not asking the government to control
> anything, AT ALL!
Wonderful. I'm with you.
> So, for some odd reason you oppose
> global warming for the same reasons that others
> support global warming. Sounds like the majority of
> scientists that support global warming have more
> evidence. You have none, and give no reasons NOT to
> support global warming other than you can't trust
> those dirty scientists duds and dudets. The ones
> supporting global warming have evidence and you just
> have trust issues. That's the only answers you've
> given me. You say look at the sources you've given,
> and I said give me the evidence from these sources, if
> you've read them. It just sounds as if you've made up
> your mind long ago due to trust issues, and just
> searched the internet for somebody (cross your
> fingers) else that might be somewhat credible that
> also opposes global warming.
The scientists I referred to have evidence for their views just as
those who think we're responsible for global warming do. You are free
to read the evidence on both sides just as I am. If you don't choose
to do so, fine. Just don't expect me to do your research for you. And, if
you think I have "trust issues," whatever that means, so be it. Insinuating
a defect of my character doesn't do your argument any favors.
-------------------------------------------------
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/
