I used to post a lot on FB (mostly political/philosophical topics), then quit, months later went back again, slowly started posting again a lot, then quit again. It's like when you stop smoking the smoke suffocates you and you wonder how you ever could, but you know there is something about it that could get you hooked again if you don't stay away.
Problem is if enough people did so the country would (probably? what do I know) be in trouble. At least in the non-long run.
That said I agree, and I do so too for the most part, I drive a 20+ year old car and use iPhone 4S. There are people who go farther though: "This couple lives on 6% of their income so they can give $100,000 a year to charity": https://qz.com/515655/this-cou...
Most doctors I met had resistance to technology and that's OK. Their intuition -- if they are any good -- is on the living patient first, then lab results and science. Computers and data flow are the last thing they care about. Software made for them should be particularly easy to use.
Most of us would rather pick a doctor who's clueless about computers but good about understanding the patient.
I admit I know very little about the climate science, you clearly are an expert. For that reason I'm not talking about the science, only about the psychology behind why it's being accepted. And the psychology is this: if you want to make a serious decision based on a tool -- whether that tool is a scientific model, an astrology chart, or a sword -- you need some serious confidence in predictions of the future based on that tool. If you made a new kind of sword you will not equip your army with it (I'm using it as an example that the same principle has held for millennia) until you have predicted, many times, how the sword would fair when used by your soldiers in simulation battles and your prediction ended up correct.
The key mental thing for acceptance is you say, if you do this, that will happen, and when it does (assuming it is something important and non-obvious) we are awed at your understanding of the world and are ready to trust you with important things.
*That* is what is missing with the climate science. Were it able to said -- and it can't, for the reasons you mentioned -- there will be 2x major hurricanes on the East coast next year than the last year, and summer temperatures in the south will be on the average 12F higher than last year etc. (making all this up), people would say hey! what they are saying is true. We mostly trust the weather forecast. But because climate science will likely never be able to do anything remotely precise, it will never awe us with its predictive abilities and we will never reach a consensus to make costly changes it recommends. Even if the model is in, that abstract sense, true.
That said I will give the Forbes article a proper read.
It isn't -- a science is "settled" only if when has consistently provided accurate predictions in its domain, even if the science itself later turns out to be incomplete. Newton's physics is settled; General Relativity is settled; Standard Model is settled; even if for the later two we will one day likely discover a point where they break.
Climate change model is to my knowledge completely unable to provide verifiable predictions, and I believe it never will, even if it's "true" in some abstract sense (which you rightly said is not the objective). Even if in one 100 years the average temperature does rise 2C or whatever, we won't know if humans are the cause, if there is such a thing as a "cause" in such infinitely complex system. As a science whose proponents are asking for big policy changes, climate change is "not even wrong."
It's a wasted effort in my opinion, as an environmentalist I think we should focus on preventing more directly observable harm.
Tell it to the hordes of journos and "progressives" who keep saying that the science is settled. Though my jab is not only at them but at members of the scientific community who went out of bounds of science and decided not only that the model is most probably true despite being the least verifiable major model in the history of science, but also they know what the best *policy* for all of us should be.
Had this thing been approached with more modesty and humility it might have earned some goodwill from the plebs. As it is, I believe it's actually doing damage to other conservationist efforts. And I'm only the people side of the equation, though at the bottom of any science are only people.
"It was hidden from us just because we didn't sample it right." This must have been the last remaining sampling error and from now on the science is settled.
It's worse than that: framing environmental efforts in the context of climate change takes away its teeth. If you say we must reduce coal mining coal because of our sophisticated climate models, people will say pfft that is made up stuff. But if you say reduce coal mining because of the pollution, it's much harder to dismiss that because pollution is visible and everybody knows what it's like to breathe poor quality air. (Assuming coal mining creates pollution.)
In part the anti environmental tide that's going on is made possible by years of (smug and arrogant, if you ask me) insistence on climate change.
What we call causative relationship "exists" i.e. is observably strong only in simple systems. In complex systems such as human body or far more so the Earth any process observed in isolation is in general merely a "contributing factor" that is easily amplified or diminished by the temporary and unique constellation of infinite other factors.
As such, AGW theory is (rightly, in my view) seen by policy makers as too weak to make critical decisions. My view is also that it's much better to put efforts into reducing pollution, for the same reason -- the observable "consequences" of pollution are much stronger and according to the AGW models reducing pollution would go towards reducing man made impact on the climate anyway, however big or small it is.
Eh we all hope to have the maximum impact on the world so we amp up the significance of what we do.
But I wonder if it's always been like that, and whether people were at other times more realistic about their role in the world. Maybe it's the internet that's stimulating this distortion.
From my perspective, someone who can expose huge faults in the way society functions so we can fix those faults, who can teach us how to bend conventional reality and not be constrained in our thinking, and who can project optimism to others instead of depression is welcome as a leader. Initially Trump did give the impression he could be more likely than the average president to do something catastrophic, but enough time has passed without it happening that it doesn't look like he'll do in the worst case any more damage than GWB did. Or Obama for that matter.
Btw I'm not apologizing to the left anymore for having a different opinion, certainly not after the last couple of months of madness. In fact if you waver in expressing what you believe in even a bit they will pounce on you like a pack of wolves as you say, especially online.
It will never break on where it works now, it will just be discovered that in some special circumstances the theory no longer predicts correctly.
That said conceivably some postulates and constants on which the theory is based may change over eons -- who is to say they must remain fixed to what they now appear to have been through time -- but in practical terms it will never break for us.
And then, there are exceptions to everything, maybe this particular theory, unlike most others, will never break.
All theories are a list of empirical observations that are generalized more or less elegantly, and they all eventually break. Seems like the more elegant a theory is, the sooner it breaks.
I agree, what we do is what counts. In fact someone saying they believe in God and then not treating life as precious and acting accordingly would be most hollow.
And vice versa -- a quote I found in a book says "It is typical of the whole biblical attitude, where act and life are more important than words, that to this day the Jew assumes that he who lives correctly believes correctly."
To quote Max Planck, "Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it."
Or contemplating that question, consciously or not, affects every aspect of our life, every one of the thousands of decisions we make daily, and those decisions reverberate through the end of time. If that matters to you, you need some framework to think about it, and thinking about God is one such framework that many people believe is meaningful and valid.
This tells me you're not a centrist, or if you were, it's irrelevant, you hate Trump. People either hate Trump or they don't, in which case they love him or are OK with him. That applies to everything associated with Trump: if you hate Trump you hate today's Republicans, you hate Fox, you hate Kavanaugh and so on.
When people hate Trump their emotions interfere with their mental processes in a way that makes them unaware of it, like the stuff you wrote about "all" women (other things in there too, like sports, industry, but all women is most telling). These mental slips are a telling sign of hate in people who otherwise try to appear calm and reasoned, and in general people don't like hate, hence the current Republican majority.
Those who love Trump may also be subject to mental distortions, but not too many people love Trump in the intensity that the large minority hates him. (And love trumps hate anyway.)
I don't think the FCC said they don't have authority over ISPs, rather they said they didn't think it was useful to exercise it in the way NN prescribed.
The example of federal government limiting state rights for the assumed benefit of the country you can find with cars: CA due to the size of its market is not allowed to impose its own emissions standards on cars sold in CA, whereas RI for example can.
Too few people were using G+ for anyone to notice the bug. I think they are just using it as an excuse to kill off G+, so they can focus more on Social Justice.
Slashdot Mirror
The author of the article seems very intent on the readers taking his speculation as truth. I wonder why he cares so much.
I used to post a lot on FB (mostly political/philosophical topics), then quit, months later went back again, slowly started posting again a lot, then quit again. It's like when you stop smoking the smoke suffocates you and you wonder how you ever could, but you know there is something about it that could get you hooked again if you don't stay away.
Social media is when your identity is known. That makes all the difference in the world.
Problem is if enough people did so the country would (probably? what do I know) be in trouble. At least in the non-long run.
That said I agree, and I do so too for the most part, I drive a 20+ year old car and use iPhone 4S. There are people who go farther though: "This couple lives on 6% of their income so they can give $100,000 a year to charity": https://qz.com/515655/this-cou...
Most doctors I met had resistance to technology and that's OK. Their intuition -- if they are any good -- is on the living patient first, then lab results and science. Computers and data flow are the last thing they care about. Software made for them should be particularly easy to use.
Most of us would rather pick a doctor who's clueless about computers but good about understanding the patient.
I admit I know very little about the climate science, you clearly are an expert. For that reason I'm not talking about the science, only about the psychology behind why it's being accepted. And the psychology is this: if you want to make a serious decision based on a tool -- whether that tool is a scientific model, an astrology chart, or a sword -- you need some serious confidence in predictions of the future based on that tool. If you made a new kind of sword you will not equip your army with it (I'm using it as an example that the same principle has held for millennia) until you have predicted, many times, how the sword would fair when used by your soldiers in simulation battles and your prediction ended up correct.
The key mental thing for acceptance is you say, if you do this, that will happen, and when it does (assuming it is something important and non-obvious) we are awed at your understanding of the world and are ready to trust you with important things.
*That* is what is missing with the climate science. Were it able to said -- and it can't, for the reasons you mentioned -- there will be 2x major hurricanes on the East coast next year than the last year, and summer temperatures in the south will be on the average 12F higher than last year etc. (making all this up), people would say hey! what they are saying is true. We mostly trust the weather forecast. But because climate science will likely never be able to do anything remotely precise, it will never awe us with its predictive abilities and we will never reach a consensus to make costly changes it recommends. Even if the model is in, that abstract sense, true.
That said I will give the Forbes article a proper read.
sorry making typos left and right trying to type before compile finishes :-)
It isn't -- a science is "settled" only if when has consistently provided accurate predictions in its domain, even if the science itself later turns out to be incomplete. Newton's physics is settled; General Relativity is settled; Standard Model is settled; even if for the later two we will one day likely discover a point where they break.
Climate change model is to my knowledge completely unable to provide verifiable predictions, and I believe it never will, even if it's "true" in some abstract sense (which you rightly said is not the objective). Even if in one 100 years the average temperature does rise 2C or whatever, we won't know if humans are the cause, if there is such a thing as a "cause" in such infinitely complex system. As a science whose proponents are asking for big policy changes, climate change is "not even wrong."
It's a wasted effort in my opinion, as an environmentalist I think we should focus on preventing more directly observable harm.
Tell it to the hordes of journos and "progressives" who keep saying that the science is settled. Though my jab is not only at them but at members of the scientific community who went out of bounds of science and decided not only that the model is most probably true despite being the least verifiable major model in the history of science, but also they know what the best *policy* for all of us should be.
Had this thing been approached with more modesty and humility it might have earned some goodwill from the plebs. As it is, I believe it's actually doing damage to other conservationist efforts. And I'm only the people side of the equation, though at the bottom of any science are only people.
"It was hidden from us just because we didn't sample it right." This must have been the last remaining sampling error and from now on the science is settled.
It's worse than that: framing environmental efforts in the context of climate change takes away its teeth. If you say we must reduce coal mining coal because of our sophisticated climate models, people will say pfft that is made up stuff. But if you say reduce coal mining because of the pollution, it's much harder to dismiss that because pollution is visible and everybody knows what it's like to breathe poor quality air. (Assuming coal mining creates pollution.)
In part the anti environmental tide that's going on is made possible by years of (smug and arrogant, if you ask me) insistence on climate change.
Perhaps he is drawing parallels with what's happening at public universities regarding free speech.
Then again Google, FB etc. are not government and they too engage in censorship too.
What we call causative relationship "exists" i.e. is observably strong only in simple systems. In complex systems such as human body or far more so the Earth any process observed in isolation is in general merely a "contributing factor" that is easily amplified or diminished by the temporary and unique constellation of infinite other factors.
As such, AGW theory is (rightly, in my view) seen by policy makers as too weak to make critical decisions. My view is also that it's much better to put efforts into reducing pollution, for the same reason -- the observable "consequences" of pollution are much stronger and according to the AGW models reducing pollution would go towards reducing man made impact on the climate anyway, however big or small it is.
Eh we all hope to have the maximum impact on the world so we amp up the significance of what we do.
But I wonder if it's always been like that, and whether people were at other times more realistic about their role in the world. Maybe it's the internet that's stimulating this distortion.
From my perspective, someone who can expose huge faults in the way society functions so we can fix those faults, who can teach us how to bend conventional reality and not be constrained in our thinking, and who can project optimism to others instead of depression is welcome as a leader. Initially Trump did give the impression he could be more likely than the average president to do something catastrophic, but enough time has passed without it happening that it doesn't look like he'll do in the worst case any more damage than GWB did. Or Obama for that matter.
Btw I'm not apologizing to the left anymore for having a different opinion, certainly not after the last couple of months of madness. In fact if you waver in expressing what you believe in even a bit they will pounce on you like a pack of wolves as you say, especially online.
Yes, exactly -- wait.
It will never break on where it works now, it will just be discovered that in some special circumstances the theory no longer predicts correctly.
That said conceivably some postulates and constants on which the theory is based may change over eons -- who is to say they must remain fixed to what they now appear to have been through time -- but in practical terms it will never break for us.
And then, there are exceptions to everything, maybe this particular theory, unlike most others, will never break.
All theories are a list of empirical observations that are generalized more or less elegantly, and they all eventually break. Seems like the more elegant a theory is, the sooner it breaks.
There is no other value to their analyses. Their track record shows that. The magazine is a nicely packaged nothing.
That sounds like an excellent new topic for the ever expanding area of Social Justice.
I agree, what we do is what counts. In fact someone saying they believe in God and then not treating life as precious and acting accordingly would be most hollow.
And vice versa -- a quote I found in a book says "It is typical of the whole biblical attitude, where act and life are more important than words, that to this day the Jew assumes that he who lives correctly believes correctly."
To quote Max Planck, "Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it."
Or contemplating that question, consciously or not, affects every aspect of our life, every one of the thousands of decisions we make daily, and those decisions reverberate through the end of time. If that matters to you, you need some framework to think about it, and thinking about God is one such framework that many people believe is meaningful and valid.
Huh actually the title of the post alone more or less counters what I said. Butter on my head. I guess I didn't RTFT.
and women are all biased against republicans
(emphasis mine)
This tells me you're not a centrist, or if you were, it's irrelevant, you hate Trump. People either hate Trump or they don't, in which case they love him or are OK with him. That applies to everything associated with Trump: if you hate Trump you hate today's Republicans, you hate Fox, you hate Kavanaugh and so on.
When people hate Trump their emotions interfere with their mental processes in a way that makes them unaware of it, like the stuff you wrote about "all" women (other things in there too, like sports, industry, but all women is most telling). These mental slips are a telling sign of hate in people who otherwise try to appear calm and reasoned, and in general people don't like hate, hence the current Republican majority.
Those who love Trump may also be subject to mental distortions, but not too many people love Trump in the intensity that the large minority hates him. (And love trumps hate anyway.)
I don't think the FCC said they don't have authority over ISPs, rather they said they didn't think it was useful to exercise it in the way NN prescribed.
The example of federal government limiting state rights for the assumed benefit of the country you can find with cars: CA due to the size of its market is not allowed to impose its own emissions standards on cars sold in CA, whereas RI for example can.
Too few people were using G+ for anyone to notice the bug. I think they are just using it as an excuse to kill off G+, so they can focus more on Social Justice.