Slashdot Mirror

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."
Terpenes are a well known component of aerosol away from cities, and studied since many years. Nothing new in the headline, after all...

I'll be off myself shortly, I expect.

Sure you will, buddy.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G...

Oh noes, engineers as Creationism! http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/S...

That doesn't work. Verbal debates are stunts. They allow no time for review, or for detailed examination of points raised. Which is one reason why creationists love them - they invented the Gish Gallop.

That's an article about Richard Lindzen, who's practically made a career of out of always being wrong. For instance, he also doesn't think there's a strong link between cigarettes and lung cancer.

BTW, love reading your posts in general!

It seems to me that we have plenty of money and food and could easily create a policy situation that would feed and clothe most Americans reasonably well. I think even housing could be "reasonable" or at least much improved. But, for the political will.... How dare we suggest that the upper middle class or the upper upper upper classes didn't completely earn everything?

Also, it isn't a zero sum game. Doubling the minimum wage and fixing it to inflation may be an economic engine that improves everyone's lives. I think you probably agree, but I wouldn't cede points to the idea that we couldn't do it.

I do love your epic, hilarious rebuttals of people's bullshit motivations arguments!

These has never been a single reputable study by anyone anywhere that has shown GMO anything to be unhealthy.

Is that argument by "no true Scotsman"? There have clearly been studies closely matching Monsato's own protocols which showed harm. I guess these are ruled out as disreputable since they found that GMO's might not be healthy?

GMO products have been made for decades and have been intensely studies by people with a vested interest in keeping them out.

Just as each different species is different; a Hedgehog is very unlikely to harm you as a house guest, however inviting a tiger over might be more unwise, each individual GMO would have to be studied for decades in every eco-system it might interact with in order to see if they are actually safe.

This is where we really see the arguments of GMO supporters for the lies they are. Science means experiment. There is no way to "scientifically prove" that GMOs are safe since you never know about the next different one. You can just show that no known mechanism of danger exists for the ones created so far and that it is unlikely that an unknown one exists.

The only side here which is in any way scientific is the people who believe in the "precationary principle" and they are only scientific since they clearly admit a lack of evidence and knowlege. Almost everyone else involved in this argument is lying.

OK, can you test whether the world is real, or your brain is merely living in a vat?

Okay, why bring up an untestable thought experiment after I already mentioned Last Thursdayism?

That, my friend, is known as the gish gallop where you propose so many wrong headed ideas(each of which a reasonable explanation of would take 10 times as long as spewing out) so quickly as to appear to have an undeniable point.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond

The writeup is not particularly great; the main value of this is in the assortment of links to Eric's own blog, where he is quite open in his insanity.

Actually, they should send an auctioneer to better handle the Gish Gallop.

Citation needed, mostly because I can't believe anyone would be that delusional.

I find it quite easy to believe. There are people out there who think they can evade responsibility for debts by signing their name on contracts with an irregular capitlization and can escape taxes simply by claiming to be a non-resident alien on their tax forms. These are the far right-wing lunatic fringe of the people who see something sinister in the Fed manipulating the money supply.

I think you're defining things in such a way that everybody's brains can be considered defective.

Nope. It's about testability vs non-testability. We don't understand everything there is to know about evolution or gravity or electromagnetic fields. Doesn't matter, because those things are testable. As opposed to an invisible sky man, which is no more testable than Last Thursdayism, and never will be.

You are still defining things such that the human brain is defective which is like calling a river defective because it only flows one way.

Provable, testable or not has no bearing whatsever on the workings of your brain.

You contradict yourself.

Are you seriously trying to claim that we have no proven science?

Yes. So are all scientists.

Then in your last paragraph you state.

Absolutely. Math and logic are able to show proofs all of the time. But science never does.

That's repetition, not contradiction. I say there is no proof in science, then I say there is no proof in science. Though, in your defense, I made a typo: I should have capitalized "logic" as "Logic", so perhaps that threw you off.

I think Biology, Physics, and Chemistry have as much proven work as math does. As to Logic, well, I'm not sure you know what 'Logic' is if you are claiming it's a field of science.

They don't, but luckily science isn't based on what you think, only repeatable observation. And no, Logic is not a science, it's an artificially constructed and self-referencing system, therefore it can have proofs. And it does! Scientific theories are never proven because they are observations of nature, which is infinite and always changing (as far as we have so far observed, anyway).

Dog breeding is not the missing evidence for evolution, and neither is a flu virus. I'm pretty sure that they point in the right direction, but that does not get us the missing proof.

There is no missing evidence for the facts or theory of evolution. Dog breeding is one example of the fact of evolution. Flu virus mutation is another. Those facts, plus thousands more, contribute to the body of knowledge we call the Theory of Evolution (ToE). A theory can never be missing evidence, though will always allow for new evidence. There is no one ultimate fact that will finally prove a theory to be true at all times and in all conditions.

I never said evolution was wrong, in fact quite the opposite I stated that I believe the theory will be proven in time. I stated it's not proven, and for some reason you refuse to accept that.

I don't refuse to accept that you said the ToE isn't proven, because you did. I do refuse to accept, however, that it can be proven, since it can't be. No theory can be. The ToE (like all theories) can only be strengthened by new supporting evidence, modified or nullified by new conflicting evidence, or incorporated into new theories as our knowledge of nature expands. Like when Newton's Theory of Gravity was incorporated into Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. The fact of gravity never went away while we sorted it out. No one floated into the sky while we looked for the missing evidence. We just learned that Newton's observations no longer apply in all conditions at all times, e.g., at speeds approaching c , but are perfectly valid in "everyday" conditions.

Do I get to burn in hell for not believing like you do?

You are already burning in the hell of ignorance. At this point I'll have to assume you are either remaining willfully ignorant to the formal definition of scientific theory, and are therefore a troll, or you are just incapable of learning anything new. Either way, it's pointless for me to continue to explain it to you. There are plenty of resources online that do a wonderful job illustrating what a scientific theory is, if you ever care to educate yourself about it.

I think you're defining things in such a way that everybody's brains can be considered defective.

Nope. It's about testability vs non-testability. We don't understand everything there is to know about evolution or gravity or electromagnetic fields. Doesn't matter, because those things are testable. As opposed to an invisible sky man, which is no more testable than Last Thursdayism, and never will be.

Check history, evolution is a theory and that what it will stay at. Show evidence, for instance, the transition of a fish/monkey/etc walk/talk/etc. There is none and if you give me an example of those fish that walk on their fins is not a scientific example (read the scientific findings/reports) because there is and never has been evidence of a fish transitioning to evolving to walk on land (...walk on two feet, shed it's fur, ....). All living things have existed in their present form. Mutation you say, there have been lots of mutations but never goes further in it's present form. I think it takes more faith for evolutionist/Darwin to believe in something they cannot prove but it is ok for them to push it on everyone through the education system. They call this a free country but only if it falls in evolution thinking and you can't continue teaching religious ones because we will use separation of church and state on you - I feel so free.

I think you're defining things in such a way that everybody's brains can be considered defective.

Nope. It's about testability vs non-testability. We don't understand everything there is to know about evolution or gravity or electromagnetic fields. Doesn't matter, because those things are testable. As opposed to an invisible sky man, which is no more testable than Last Thursdayism, and never will be.

A fine Gish Gallop if I ever saw one.

I just want the gun toting libertarians and the pot smoking libertarians along with the tea party guys, and the occupiers to all come together.. toss out the vegans and religious nuts, and you'd get some pretty strong coverage with about 95% agreement.

This is something I've never understood...the depth of stupidity. If you combine those groups, you're correct, their platforms line up very nicely. The problem is, all of their arguments for change are not even wrong, so they just argue with each other ad nauseum.

captcha: standby

I have much experience in dealing with the topic at hand, and feel obliged to warn you of the inherent danger of your snack selection preference in this instance.

The social justice warrior will insist you be eating all the popcorn whether it pops or not. After all: Should not all the kernels be treated equally? You're not a popist cornsagonist furthering strict kernel roles, are you?

Others observant of finer detail than applying the label popist or not based on eating preference will note that all the kernels were treated equally: They were given a chance to pop, but some did not choose to be popped and digested by the system. Indeed there could be physiological predeterminations for the unpopped vs popped variety of kernel, and it would be equally wrong to pressure the eater to consume those that are incompatible with digestion as it's wrong to shame the unpopped kernels for not entering the food cycle; Certainly it would be moronic to claim the plight of the popped ones is a privilege.

The social justice warrior will then declare that the popped or not state can't be determined at kernel creation, it's the environment that has a bias for exactly what types of corn are suitable for popping and creates repressive constraints on which kernels are allowed to pop. They'll demand a more fair popping system be devised, but not actually outline any exact plans for such a system so you'll know when it has been achieved, and they'll ignore how the popping system may affect the popped corn itself.

Others with a knowledge of botany and thermodynamics will point out that kernels of certain genetic predispositions have known traits, and that there are many systems for popping, which all yield different types of popped corn and unpopped kernels. Air popping gives kernels more time to pop, but creates a drier popcorn that's not suitable for everyone's tastes. Kettle popping creates a more traditional flavour, and yields more unpopped kernels. The most unpopped kernels are produced via microwave environment due to the heat being applied to already popped kernels which limits the duration of popping time and kernel batch size, it's also more likely to produce artificial flavors; However, nuked kernels have utility in being compact and accessible to more eaters. It's too simplistic to blame the eater for the kernels or popping environment available, or the environment for the consumer's preference, or either of these for the physical properties of individual kernels or how the laws of thermodynamics and genetics work. Neither the eater nor the popper are being cornsagonist against kernels; To them all the kernels are given equal opportunity to pop and enter the digestive system.

At which point the social justice warrior will leverage a collection of statistics on the types of popping and evidence of past abuse of corn, burning, neglect, being feed to lesser animals, etc. They'll point to select occurrences of popping gone horribly wrong. If one's not careful to interject quickly it will turn into a gish gallop.

While admittedly the tragic popping can't be ignored, one must examine the frequency of such occurrence and the attention that society does give -- A slew of firemen may arrive to deal with a single bag of over nuked corn; It's clearly not cornsagony. The scientific minded observer will point out that past abuses do not reflect current corn popping culture and that anecdotal evidence is not really evidence; They'll note that the statistics only show a trend, not a causal link to cornsagony, and that sections of the studies have gone ignored: The uneaten popped kernels. If the study was performed by the social justice alliance you'll likely find a bias in the selection criteria (went looking for evidence for a preconceived kernel popping opinion) and there'll be no testing of the null hypothesis, or unequivocal evidence that the conclusion is correct, or that popping trends could not instead be formed by

What then is left? Well... we have the emperical fact of the healthcare premiums going up. That's a fact.

Premiums always go up, it's called inflation. But the rate of increase is near all time lows.

We have 70 percent of doctors in many areas boycotting the ACA. That is a fact.

No, it's not a fact. It's a straight up lie. You're just gullible.

We have people with serious illnesses that were covered under the old system losing their healthcare and having new healthcare policies offered that are twice as expensive. That is a fact.

That's an anecdote. I could dig up dozens of counter examples, but why waste my time? You're just performing a Gish Gallop.

It's not evidence if it's so easy to find debunking information about it: failed biblical prophecies

For those wondering what this is.

"Alker finds the models are dependent only on carbon dioxide (CO2) to change temperature. Incredibly, the models seem to be pre-programmed so that no other atmospheric variable is allowed to alter climate."

There many different models and different types of models, this claim is broad and easily falsified. From Real Climate:

Initially (ca. 1975), GCMs were based purely on atmospheric processes – the winds, radiation, and with simplified clouds. By the mid-1980s, there were simple treatments of the upper ocean and sea ice, and clouds parameterisations started to get slightly more sophisticated. In the 1990s, fully coupled ocean-atmosphere models started to become available. This is when the first Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) was started. This has subsequently seen two further iterations, the latest (CMIP3) being the database used in support of much of the model work in the IPCC AR4. Over that time, model simulations have become demonstrably more realistic (Reichler and Kim, 2008) as resolution has increased and parameterisations have become more sophisticated. Nowadays, models also include dynamic sea ice, aerosols and atmospheric chemistry modules. Issues like excessive ‘climate drift’ (the tendency for a coupled model to move away from the a state resembling the actual climate) which were problematic in the early days are now much minimised.

Here are some links to the myths most commonly spread by Murry Salby and Christopher Moncton. Moncton, in particular, is fond of a tactic called the Gish Gallop where you throw out reasonable sounding claims that are false in such rapid succession that the goal is make it nigh impossible for your opponent to rebut all the errors in your statements without sounding tedious and pedantic and losing the interest of the crowd.

If you can't be bothered to repost what you said before at least have the courtesy to link to it. I went through you posts and found this one.

But that isn't actually evidence, it is just a variant on the argument from incredulity. You personally can't imagine how the complexities of life couldn't come about without a creator, therefore their must be a creator. I'm sorry, but that is just a logical fallacy.

And there was also this comment.
You seem to think it is evidence, but it certainly isn't.

Are there any other comments that I may have missed where you actually pointed out some real evidence?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

tfs:

The document notes that social networking and instant messaging tools can rapidly disseminate information and mobilize society; the government doesn't think those are good things

This is what I love about China. They're completely up front about who they are. In the US everything needs to be carefully cloaked in terms of protection from terrorists.

Oh, come now. There're many reasons you can give, the American public is very receptive to not only "terrorist prevention" but also "religious freedom" [1], not to mention "right to bear arms" - "stand your ground" is a great example of using this freedom effectively to justify many actions [2].

And don't forget "about the children" - it's very easy to promote your agenda in the name of children, especially if they're not yet born. The personhood movement hasn't yet been successful yet [3] - but give them time!

For more information on how to properly promote your agenda using well-known channels, please contact your preferred top-tier lobbying organization, scientology office, or the GOP (Democrats suck at this, but are getting better - best to go with the leaders in the field for now).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
[3] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Personhood_laws

Gather 'round, kids. Parent post is a classic example of the Gish Gallop.

Actually, we both are, and I just threw a basilisk at you. Have fun sleeping.

You need to know more about lying before teaching others about it. Try this

It's good to know you've taken the time to assess the intelligence of 1.3 billion people in your spare time, and have provided a definitive writeup of the entire scope of an entire culture, neatly summarized into "You might think so, but they haven't".

You should realize you are suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect. It will piss you off greatly, but it's ultimately for the best that you know your incompetence now.

Meh, fuck the per-site user comments. Content is what counts. Their content isn't in the comments. As you say, they did "let the masses participate", however, the masses weren't actually being scientific at all. You have the concerted trolling flood leveraged by creationists to blame, not the scientist. If you want to participate, simply pick a subject, come up with some repeatable experiment that proves it wrong or right. Cite some other resources that lend credence towards or away from the other experiments conclusions. It's not like anyone's in an ivory tower, scientists are at the ground floor, scrapping for funding, living one paycheck to the next like any below average joe. You don't do science for the money...

I'd take no comments too over having every article flooded with baseless misinformation, logical fallacies and the never ending Gish Gallop. Like you say, the commenters can go elsewhere and discuss things, perhaps somewhere with better moderators.

Additionally, it's the Unix Way(tm): Do one thing and do it well. Not every damn site has to have a comments section. That's dumb, seriously. Slashdot and other aggregation hubs are great for comments, you don't have to have a load of different accounts.

Wickramasinghe discovers panspermia more often than other people discover Atlantis.

And presents convincing evidence about as often, too.

He also publishes his results in that journal, of which he happens to be one of the Executive Editors.

Ok, I haven't lived in Texas for 2 decades now, but I was also born there, went to college there, etc..

A relatively small group of religious conservatives have somehow taken over the Board of Education.

Just how this happened, and why people put up with it, is something I cannot explain. Sure, Texas has it's share of religious whack jobs, but really no more than (and possibly fewer than) many other states a bit farther to the north and east.

What's worse is that Texas has also become the state that many other states look to, to set a baseline for what textbooks their schools will use.

No, I'm not surprised. There exist competing theories on the nature of nature of discrimination, and one of the theories that exists, but is not widely adopted is called prejudice plus power. That's not where the majority of people seeking equality are coming from and its misrepresentative to claim they are.

You can keep pretending your few straw feminists have any bearing on the underlying problem of recurring social discrimination, but it's over and over again been quite clearly a facade to cover for prejudice.

Sometimes you can't refute an argument because it's so bad that it's not even wrong

squiggleslash, allow me to introduce you to Nathan Poe.

Ah, I see you've already met.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cryonics

Can you explain how two thirty year old adults are able to form a zero year old baby?

Yes, actually. It's a combination of limited cell division and selection.

Men produce huge numbers of sperm. Sperm with damaged dna tend not to win the race to the egg.

Women produce far fewer eggs but they do it early in life before much damage can accumulate.

If the zygote does end up with damaged DNA, it usually aborts spontaneous. In fact, about 70% of conceptions abort spontaneously.

So any fetus that survives these trials is generally in good shape at birth. If that baby is female, eggs are then quickly produced for the next generation before much new genetic rot can take place.

Poe's law applies here.

Thanks, you will most likely be quoted as an example of American Exceptionalism

May your ignorance not inflict others :)

Technology doesn't solve the problems people want them to solve.

The problem is you're saying that to people who have no real inkling about how technology works, how it is applied and its limitations.

That's why the Homermobile is the perfect metaphor for people suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

I don't know what mental gymnastics you are capable of, but here is a description of what you just said.

Oh, and: Reddit is a very popular viral advertising platform. Most such sites are, including meme / funny sites.
I'd say in some subreddits, almost all posts are fake. In many it's about half.

Start with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

For additional course credit move to this:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Schlafly_Statistics

Now re-read your post, and discuss.

Perhaps Last Thursdayism is true, and none of this ever happened.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quidquid_latine_dictum_sit,_altum_videtur

CAPTCHA: "damned"

Nobody gives a fuck about your goddammned captcha.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quidquid_latine_dictum_sit,_altum_videtur

CAPTCHA: "damned"

Alberta should like that.

How about adding Alberta to Jesusland? Bonus points if we spin off Quebec and get a pat on the back from the UN for freeing an "oppressed minority" (the Cree probably want to stay with us though, so we'll get Hydro-Quebec).

That absolutely is a classic denier position, because it sounds sensible on the surface (just give me some more proof), but in practice the goalposts move, so that there is never enough proof. The whole argument is set up that way -- science can never "prove it irrefutably" because that wouldn't be science.

I see you are one of the 40% of healthy adults who struggle with sarcasm. Don't worry, you are in good company.

I see you are one of the 102% of basement dwellers who struggles with Poe's Law.