[geocentrism] Re: Climate change
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:30:24 +0000 (GMT)
JA
From j a Wed Jun 13 20:48:35 2007
OK -- JA it is. You see, when I'm writing, it's like I'm having a conversation.
I'm addressing you, and from time to time it is appropriate to address you by
name. The fact that you appear variously as JA, J A, ja, j a I find unsettling.
As you prefer, I'll stick to JA and live with it.
As for your responce: As long as you stick to your definitions, you can avoid
the point I keep trying to bring to your attention.
I don't see how an attempt to achieve clear unambiguous communication helps me
to avoid this point of which you speak, the nature of which I cannot recall.
Perhaps you would remind me of it in one or two sentences?
Comparing you to what you dislike the most must be too unsettling to be
considered.
I've collected all your personal criticisms of me that I could find in your
posts in the Climate Change thread. I'm not unsettled by any of them. If I was
going to be unsettled by any comparison, I assure you that you have not named
it. Additionally, there doesn't seem to be a common thread to your criticisms,
so I'm also unaware of what it is that you think I might dislike the most.
Criticisms you have levelled at me -
My crtique of you, In short is, you fall to see in yourself that which you are
most critical of in others..
The Science Establishment is your God and Scientists your priests. Once a
subject is defined by your priests, you fall lock-step behind them, until they
change there minds, then you do to. Prove me wrong! What of modern science do
you question or seriously doubt? Anything?
Your continued use of this is a sign of the superior, holier than thou attitude
of an elitist! And that is not reasonable - except to an elitist
History is full of people like you. I take back calling you a Lemming, I'll
have to think up something more appropriate and much less innocent than that.
You seem too conflicted to discuss this!
To continue -
Anywhere you see my use of the word belief you may replace it with idea or
theory if it makes you and your dictionary more comfortable
That would be pointless if you still believe it means something different from
what most other users of English believe.
For the last paragraph, it will be more efficient to intersperse comments -
As for your point about the story - that science is self correcting - is only
an assertion, not a fact. You may produce thousands of examples of things once
thought by science that have been changed or "corrected". How do you know the
current thought is true? I don't. And so long as you keep trying to ascribe
absolute values to my utterances, you will continue to get this kind of
response. I've explained this multiple times. Maybe an old idea and the new
idea are both incorrect, maybe the old idea was correct all along, maybe
there's a little truth in both but neither are complete. Yes - and maybe the
current idea is correct. And maybe religion is the opiate of the masses.
Science is a club with rules that have nothing to do with science. This sounds
like an expression of your personal predjudices. You certainly have shown no
evidence, no corroborating opinions. Why should I give it any credence? In
school you learn the prevailing (presumed) concensus, you do not learn
competing ideas or reasoning among conflicting ideas. Can you give me examples
of a Baptist Sunday School introducing the students to the basics of Buddhism,
Islam (both flavours) or sing Hindu hymns? How about Catholic Catechism
classes? Menonite Christian? Jehovah's Witnesses? School doesn't teach you
everything you'll need for your life journey. School gives you a licence to
learn. When you become an adult, you're expected to make some enquiries of your
own. In science jobs and papers and grants you cannot go against the common
beliefs among scientists - especially anything considered fundamental. In
religion, if you try that, you'll be excommunicated or shunned or whatever word
the particular religion favours. If there are many of you, you may -- depending
on the period of history -- be involved in a bloody war. Again depending upon
the date, you may be burned at the stake. Can you give me examples where
science burned an unbeliever or fought a bloody war in support of
scientific knowledge or understanding? If you want to assert a common
scientific belief as truth to others who do not share the belief, then you need
something more than your scientific concensus to convince. I wonder what it
would take to convince you? There are people for instance, who believe that the
efforts of hundreds of thousands of people financed by billions of dollars all
working in full view upon the single largest specific scientific/engineering
experiment ever undertaken by Man can be dismissed by accusations of lying.
What if something really fundamantal to science were simply wrong, and so many
great scientific beliefs were based on it, how would that ever be corrected?
Have you learned nothing from the Mendel/Lysenko example I gave you? And if it
was, what about the people who believed the nonsence all along? They were
simply wrong. There were gross consequences of course for those who backed
Lysenko. And it might be noted in passing, some degree of
discomfort for those who opposed Mendel. Did you see the cartoon by 'Bob - the
Angry Flower' I posted some little time ago? It sheds light on your question
also, with the eloquence which so often marks the work of cartoonists.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From j a Thu Jun 14 16:59:25 2007
When you find an error in the first sentence of a reference, it does tend to
lower your confidence in that reference -
We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough –
irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global
temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent –
Note however that it is corrected in two places towards the bottom.
Then we have this little gem -
o Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he
wants.
Wouldn't that be nice? I think it would be fun to drive on the other side of
the road from most other people, you know -- all the lemmings!
Also, the man is an economist, has only ever been a money man. This is a bit
like consulting a portait or landscape painter about the cause of recurring
violent stomache cramps.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think this will do for now.
JA, in closing, may I remark that nearly all of your points are of the 'maybe'
or 'what if' type. This is not very helpful.
Paul D
_________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all
webmail accounts.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
Other related posts:
