Here's some recommendations that I received on debate and philosophy. My Mentor recommended them, I pass his wisdom onto you. Good luck.:)
The loci of thinking are philosophy, mathematics and science, particularly inductive and deductive reasoning, syllogism, and causation/correlation -- a lifetime of study.
A good place to start are a couple of philosophy books, Steven Pinker's "Blank Slate" and Lackoff's books, particularly "Philosophy in the Flesh". Tough sledding, but worth it.
Probably the best source is the coursework by Arnold Siegel. His introduction is 4 days and something like 2500. It is a superb start. I dumped a lot of money on this guy, and consider it the best investment I ever made, but it is expensive.
Here's an idea of what debate really is, quoted previously in this thread:
Mother Nature uses a loaded die for climate. I do not think we have really figured out how it's rigged yet. But the people who think they do have it figured out are making Chicken Little asses of themselves, throwing their weight around and slapping their hands all over Science making chaos, ripples and rudeness where there had once been a calm pool of open peer review, emerging theories and mutual respect. A process which valued 'attempts to falsify' and replication as much as citation and grant-seeding.
Models are not science. Empirical data is science. Have fun making Type II errors with your model data. Some of us know better than to accept a hypothesis without empirical data to substantiate it. You can keep talking about your climate models and manipulating the raw data to fit your agenda... and I'll keep pointing to actual empirical evidence like the Vostok Ice Cores which tell us that it was warmer during the European Middle Ages than it is today despite there being no carbon pollution to speak of.
It would be foolish to claim that man-made warming does not exist just as it would be foolish to claim that it does. There is insufficient empirical data to prove or disprove the theory so the ONLY scientifically valid position is that we DO NOT KNOW.
The fact is that model driven science is junk science. These invalid methods are being pushed be grant-seeking academics who have no other source of funding. Further, there is nothing improper or unjust about questioning the academic independence of scientists who are dependent on politicians and 'environmental justice' groups for their funding stream... scientists who would likely be see their funding shifted to other programs if they did not consistent find the results their benefactors are expecting them to find.
dependence of these academics on the largesse of environmental justice groups and politicians calls into question their credibility... there is nothing invalid about questioning the bias of someone who would be unemployed if they were not able to find the results their employers want. Academic independence is important.
I will accept your personal attacks as surrender of the topic.
Gross over-generalizations and character attacks are an immediate sign that honest debate has left the room.
I will quote two other posts in this stream for your reading pleasure. You may find them useful, or not. I am done here.
Mother Nature uses a loaded die for climate. I do not think we have really figured out how it's rigged yet. But the people who think they do have it figured out are making Chicken Little asses of themselves, throwing their weight around and slapping their hands all over Science making chaos, ripples and rudeness where there had once been a calm pool of open peer review, emerging theories and mutual respect. A process which valued 'attempts to falsify' and replication as much as citation and grant-seeding.
Models are not science. Empirical data is science. Have fun making Type II errors with your model data. Some of us know better than to accept a hypothesis without empirical data to substantiate it. You can keep talking about your climate models and manipulating the raw data to fit your agenda... and I'll keep pointing to actual empirical evidence like the Vostok Ice Cores which tell us that it was warmer during the European Middle Ages than it is today despite there being no carbon pollution to speak of.
It would be foolish to claim that man-made warming does not exist just as it would be foolish to claim that it does. There is insufficient empirical data to prove or disprove the theory so the ONLY scientifically valid position is that we DO NOT KNOW.
The fact is that model driven science is junk science. These invalid methods are being pushed be grant-seeking academics who have no other source of funding. Further, there is nothing improper or unjust about questioning the academic independence of scientists who are dependent on politicians and 'environmental justice' groups for their funding stream... scientists who would likely be see their funding shifted to other programs if they did not consistent find the results their benefactors are expecting them to find.
dependence of these academics on the largesse of environmental justice groups and politicians calls into question their credibility... there is nothing invalid about questioning the bias of someone who would be unemployed if they were not able to find the results their employers want. Academic independence is important.
The problem at this point is that it's become to politicized to trust regardless of the source.
I will leave this here though. Even though this reference cannot be trusted any more than any other source. Everyone has to pay their bills and 'keep the lights on'.
You mean to tell me I should believe the people that are claiming to predict what our environment will look like in 10 years when they can't even predict the weather for the next 10 days?
I would be more interested in using something like that to communicate from one side of the solar system to the other or further yet without the restriction of the speed of light on the propagation of radio waves.
Except that quantum states are potential realities until measured. Then reality is the only one that ever was with the exception that it's been observed by entities that give a shit about the *potential state* to begin with.
Assuming of course the concept of "Quantum Computing" proves it's legitimacy and this hypothetical scenario could be implemented with a suitable number of bits to work with.
Until proven otherwise I am lumping all near-magical claims of quantum-super-computing the same status of Alchemy in the medieval era of bilking governments for money and jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
*Whoooosh*
Call it whatever you want. Accusations are not evidence, and intention or desire is not reality.
Good Day.
Liberal tears detected.
*Sigh*
I remember being that young.
Pretty sure I don't miss it.
Here's some recommendations that I received on debate and philosophy. My Mentor recommended them, I pass his wisdom onto you. Good luck. :)
The loci of thinking are philosophy, mathematics and science, particularly inductive and deductive reasoning, syllogism, and causation/correlation -- a lifetime of study.
A good place to start are a couple of philosophy books, Steven Pinker's "Blank Slate" and Lackoff's books, particularly "Philosophy in the Flesh". Tough sledding, but worth it.
Probably the best source is the coursework by Arnold Siegel. His introduction is 4 days and something like 2500. It is a superb start. I dumped a lot of money on this guy, and consider it the best investment I ever made, but it is expensive.
Wow is all I can say.
Here's an idea of what debate really is, quoted previously in this thread:
Mother Nature uses a loaded die for climate. I do not think we have really figured out how it's rigged yet. But the people who think they do have it figured out are making Chicken Little asses of themselves, throwing their weight around and slapping their hands all over Science making chaos, ripples and rudeness where there had once been a calm pool of open peer review, emerging theories and mutual respect. A process which valued 'attempts to falsify' and replication as much as citation and grant-seeding.
Models are not science. Empirical data is science. Have fun making Type II errors with your model data. Some of us know better than to accept a hypothesis without empirical data to substantiate it. You can keep talking about your climate models and manipulating the raw data to fit your agenda... and I'll keep pointing to actual empirical evidence like the Vostok Ice Cores which tell us that it was warmer during the European Middle Ages than it is today despite there being no carbon pollution to speak of.
It would be foolish to claim that man-made warming does not exist just as it would be foolish to claim that it does. There is insufficient empirical data to prove or disprove the theory so the ONLY scientifically valid position is that we DO NOT KNOW.
The fact is that model driven science is junk science. These invalid methods are being pushed be grant-seeking academics who have no other source of funding. Further, there is nothing improper or unjust about questioning the academic independence of scientists who are dependent on politicians and 'environmental justice' groups for their funding stream... scientists who would likely be see their funding shifted to other programs if they did not consistent find the results their benefactors are expecting them to find.
dependence of these academics on the largesse of environmental justice groups and politicians calls into question their credibility... there is nothing invalid about questioning the bias of someone who would be unemployed if they were not able to find the results their employers want. Academic independence is important.
Not taking the bait, yet taking the bait.
Read back, I never made any personal attacks. I *debated the topic*
Huge difference.
I will accept your personal attacks as surrender of the topic.
Gross over-generalizations and character attacks are an immediate sign that honest debate has left the room.
I will quote two other posts in this stream for your reading pleasure. You may find them useful, or not. I am done here.
Mother Nature uses a loaded die for climate. I do not think we have really figured out how it's rigged yet. But the people who think they do have it figured out are making Chicken Little asses of themselves, throwing their weight around and slapping their hands all over Science making chaos, ripples and rudeness where there had once been a calm pool of open peer review, emerging theories and mutual respect. A process which valued 'attempts to falsify' and replication as much as citation and grant-seeding.
Models are not science. Empirical data is science. Have fun making Type II errors with your model data. Some of us know better than to accept a hypothesis without empirical data to substantiate it. You can keep talking about your climate models and manipulating the raw data to fit your agenda... and I'll keep pointing to actual empirical evidence like the Vostok Ice Cores which tell us that it was warmer during the European Middle Ages than it is today despite there being no carbon pollution to speak of.
It would be foolish to claim that man-made warming does not exist just as it would be foolish to claim that it does. There is insufficient empirical data to prove or disprove the theory so the ONLY scientifically valid position is that we DO NOT KNOW.
The fact is that model driven science is junk science. These invalid methods are being pushed be grant-seeking academics who have no other source of funding. Further, there is nothing improper or unjust about questioning the academic independence of scientists who are dependent on politicians and 'environmental justice' groups for their funding stream... scientists who would likely be see their funding shifted to other programs if they did not consistent find the results their benefactors are expecting them to find.
dependence of these academics on the largesse of environmental justice groups and politicians calls into question their credibility... there is nothing invalid about questioning the bias of someone who would be unemployed if they were not able to find the results their employers want. Academic independence is important.
Bingo! This guy gets it.
It's not that. I understand Science, you cannot trust the entertainment industry to be honest about the science.
And if you're getting your science from the entertainment industry I have bad news for you.
Movies, TV shows, News programs, Talk radio, All the entertainment industry.
Neil Degrasse, Bill Nye, Also are paid entertainers.
Get it?
You just made my point man.
Have a good night.
The problem at this point is that it's become to politicized to trust regardless of the source.
I will leave this here though. Even though this reference cannot be trusted any more than any other source. Everyone has to pay their bills and 'keep the lights on'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
( I expect to be modded to death for the pun )
Proven wrong by the fact we still have Ice caps when the 'science' said they would be gone by 2014.
The only real takeaway from this is that Climate change and the controversy surrounding it will exist so long as there's money to be made from it.
Run by people dependent on funding from the current politicos.
You mean to tell me I should believe the people that are claiming to predict what our environment will look like in 10 years when they can't even predict the weather for the next 10 days?
*Rolls Eyes*
I would be more interested in using something like that to communicate from one side of the solar system to the other or further yet without the restriction of the speed of light on the propagation of radio waves.
Except that quantum states are potential realities until measured. Then reality is the only one that ever was with the exception that it's been observed by entities that give a shit about the *potential state* to begin with.
Assuming of course the concept of "Quantum Computing" proves it's legitimacy and this hypothetical scenario could be implemented with a suitable number of bits to work with.
Until proven otherwise I am lumping all near-magical claims of quantum-super-computing the same status of Alchemy in the medieval era of bilking governments for money and jobs.
"Don't publicly store your secrets".
FTFY
Quantum is the new Alchemy
http://www.crystalinks.com/alc...
+1
Hell, +10k.
So much this.
Your Mom?