[geocentrism] Re: Climate change
- From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
Paul,
I've thought about responding line by line again, but I find it unreadable
already now (I did read your responces). So I will respond in general about
what my whole point to you has become. I will try to separate a little and add
what I take to be your responce so you can have the chance correct me.
I am suggesting that whatever you think, is your religion. I think you deny
this.
I am suggesting that to be religious, has nothing to do with belief in God,
but is simply following what you think to be true, or at least following what
you are comfortable with and are familiar with. I think you deny this.
I am suggesting that anyone involved in any science is no different than
anyone involved in any religion. Some are honest seekers of truth, some pretend
to seek truth but simply seek justification, Some just want to be right, some
just want to exercise control, some follow blindly whatever they are told, some
just follow the motions of their peers without experiencing any real meaning in
the motions. Actually everyone is more likely a mixture of those sentiments in
different ways at different times. I think you deny all this.
Since anything scientific involves people and the way they interact and
behave, it will be no different then anything political or religious or
whatever grouping of interest or interaction you wish to choose. You cannot
exempt "science" from the problems found in any other human activity. I think
you deny this.
I have no problem calling what I think either faith or confidence. You seem
to have a huge problem with calling what you think faith.
You can pick on and point out the failings of religions and religious people
all you want, I won't argue the point cause I don't disagree. People everywhere
whether religious or scientific or agnostic or atheist or whatever, they all
have done and do bad things. We all do. It seems to me that you would deny this.
It seems that since you cannot grasp what I am saying above (or are not
honest enough to admit it), it is not possible to debate anything with you,
because you always fall back on some kind of "my science thinking is more pure
than whatever religious crap is driving what you think". Many people have made
many good points to you on this site and you always find a way to simply sweep
them away.
For example: I say there is evidence of increased output from the sun that is
responsible global warming. The logical possiblities are: A) the suns increased
output is responsible for the global warming B) It's partialy responsible C) No
increased output, global warming is caused by something else. Your responce
ranged from B to C with no consideration of A whatsoever. Why? because you
consider your sources of truth to somehow be untainted by the things that taint
mine.
My whole responce since we got started was to point out the fallicy contained
in that statement. Everthing I've said in this email is about that. Even if you
don't agree, surely you can see how unconvincing you are if thats what you fall
back on to defend your point. It's like one of us saying to you "the bible says
so".
I look forward to your responce,
JA
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
JA
From j a Fri Jun 15 21:36:36 2007
Before I begin addressing specific points, I think it appropriate to comment
seperately on several examples of where I see your responses demonstrating that
you have not understood the point I am making. This has occurred in previous
exchanges but I will restrict my comments on this matter to this document. The
former I will address in blue in the relevant sections and the latter, that is
responses to the specific questions, I will address in teal.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
in red!
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<!-- DIV {margin:0px;}-->
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? It seems you are
very critical of anyone with any religious belief, but you exempt yourself and
anything "scientific" from the same type of criticism. IE.. you find a high
probability that something is true because of some agreement you believe exists
among those whom you have some sort of respect for, yet deny there is any
"faith" involved. The "high probability" only exists in your mind - it is a
rational for your faith. You think the agreement or consensus is real because
you believe it is - you have faith in it being true. And you respect the
scientific establishment because you have faith in it - it is obviously where
your heart and mind are. You are like a blind black man, who advocates lynching
all the blacks because you are a racisct who isn't aware of
being black. You are a man of deeply convicted faith who denies any faith, all
the while looking down your nose at those with faith. I hope that was short
enough!
I think you will look in vain for an example of my criticising anyone for
having a religious belief. What I think on this subject I have not revealed --
it is not considered proper and does not advance the debate.
I think you will look in vain for an example of my claiming exemption from
criticism. What you will find is many examples of my attempting to justify my
position.
Pretty much everwhere the word 'faith' appears 'I'll say it yet again -- I
have confidence.' I do wish you would stop trying to have me say something you
want to hear.
I don't think I've made a specific attack upon your character thus far but if
I may be permitted one observation? I think you have a problem dealing with
anyone who expresses an opinion which differs from your 'perfect knowledge'.
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!
You have not indicated the 'dislike' I find too unsettling to consider.
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. Why should I care what others
believe, YA this is just unproductive arrogance. do you have a scientific
consensus to convince me otherwise? In this instance I simply assert it. I
further assert that any reasonable person would agree. NOTE: would not do.
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. Then why do you have so much faith
(confidence) in it? A man who thinks commonly has a position. I state it. What
would you have me do, lie about it to make you comfortable? Faith to the point
of forcing others to do and act differently. I am unable to force anyone to do
anything. 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. You keep asserting your ownership of the truth or at least the
most positive path torwards it. In what manner is what you are doing different
from what I am doing? 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 has
replaced religion as the opiate, or at least for many. I can almost agree with
this. 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? This isn't a trial. Either you see something true in my point or you
don't. Are you saying there is no truth of any sort in my statement? 'Science
is a club with rules that have nothing to do with science'? I'll assume you are
speaking metaphorically here. I think of this statement pretty much as I assume
you would think if I were to substitute 'religion' for 'science' in the same
statement. 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?
What does private or religious edjucation have to do with my point???? Nothing!
[What you seem to have missed here is that your statement '...you do not learn
competing ideas or reasoning among conflicting ideas.' implies to me that you
are critical of this, that one should be taught these conflicting ideas. My
response concerning religious education was simply to point out to you that the
philosophy which guides your life -- your 'belief' -- does precisely the same
thing doubled in spades.] Your bias is really showing here. Isn't science above
indoctrination? Here you point out religious indoctrination No -- you called it
indoctrination. I used the term 'introduce...'. Further, I didn't make a
statement -- I asked if you were aware of examples
of the introduction of competing ideas in religious classes. to excuse it in
science instruction, yet everywhere else you deny indoctrination in science!!!!
Again you swing hard in the negative direction. Let me ask you this -- would
you class teaching students the principles involved when using a beam balance
to determine relative masses indoctrination? How about measuring the relative
times a ball takes to roll down hill if the angle of descent is changed?
Demonstrations that hydrogen will burn? That a gas in an enclosed vessel
increases the internal pressure when it is heated? And that it follows a
mathematical description which allows accurate predictions? The three orders of
levers? The principle involved in the operation of hydraulic jacks which allow
97lb weaklings to change a tire on a hummer? That a magnet inserted into a coil
of wire will produce a current in that coil while the pole is moving in the
coil? That certain rules can be deduced about which way the
current will flow? That dissimilar metals seperated by an acid will produce a
voltage? That the voltage produced by different metals and combinations of
metals will produce different voltages and that every time you test this
lesson, the same voltages will be found? You've been fairly scathing in your
criticisms of science and all that it stands for, but only in general terms.
Would you favour us with some specifics with which you have issues? ...an
outline of how things would work in your perfect world? Remember -- specifics.
School doesn't teach you everything you'll need for your life journey. No
kidding. Sure would be nice if it gave more than indoctrination into your
Non-god religion of science. Tut! Tut! -- name-calling! School gives you a
licence to learn. Not in todays world where you learn what to think instead of
how to think. When you become an adult, you're expected to make some enquiries
of your own. No you're not expected to enquire about anything, you've
been given the answers, you're part of the masses and whatever you do, don't
question the reigning secular worldview. And would you expect to face trial for
scientific heresy if you do make enquiries of your own? (Assuming you find an
anomoly). 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. [I forgot to include being tried for
heresy among these censure options]. 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? Again, your answer has nothing to do
with the point and shows your bias. So you agree with my statement???
And your example would be??? [Your point '...you cannot go against the common
beliefs...' implies to me that you believe that funds should be made available
to finance activities destructive of the disciplines of science. Again I
pointed out to you that religion behaves in an exactly analagous manner to that
which you criticise but you seem either not to have grasped that or if you did
you excused it.] [To my knowledge, all religious organizations insist that
their religious teachers and priests and pastors have a good grounding in
accepted theology. As to funding scientific research which challenges the
current view, have a look at how much research was done around the world at the
first paper presented on the subject of Cold Fusion.] 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. I don't really care about what others
have dismissed. [I suspect you missed the point here also. I was of course
referring to the Apollo program.] You could start with facts - but be ready to
be challenged on whether you've actually given a fact or simply an
interpretation based on a worldview. A body, wholly or partially immersed in a
fluid experiences an up thrust equal to the weight of the fluid displaced.
Testable in any suburban kitchen. When rolling down an incline at a given
angle, all spheres will out accelerate all disks which will out accelerate all
hoops. A bit harder but you should be able to test this in your garage. A
syphon will transfer liquids from one vessel to another only while the height
of the
surface in the source vessel remains greater than the height of the surface in
the destination vessel. Testable in any suburban laundry. And here's a beauty!
We've all seen the experiment where a lighted candle placed in a bowl of water
is covered by an inverted cylindrical glass jar whose rim is pushed down below
the surface of the water. What happens initially is that the water in the jar
is pushed down below the level of the surface in the bowl but that presently
the candle extinguishes and shortly after, the water rises in the jar about 20%
of the height and we are told that this demonstrates that the oxygen content of
the air is about 20% by volume since it was used up by the combustion. Well
this is wrong. I have done an experiment which shows that this is wrong.
Further I have deduced why the explanation is wrong. To this date (30 years
have elapsed) I have not received a summons to answer charges of scientific
heresy. I look forward to your comments on these four
examples. 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?
I guess you haven't. Have you learned nothing from the history of science or
the history of human nature? No. And if it was, what about the people who
believed the nonsence all along? They were simply wrong. Well, I guess that
pointing out, that judgement from God might make being "simply wrong" a little
bit of an understatement, wouldn't mean much to you. I'm sorry -- I've read
this several times and I cannot grasp you intent. I guess you see no problem in
people living thier lives completely ignorant of the truth? Now this is
ambiguous but I'll guess that you mean religious truth. Firstly, I'm unaware
that there is any such thing. I am aware that many people have decided that
certain supernatural suppositions are correct but I have seen no
supporting evidence. I guess being wrong is fine and dandy Being wrong in
anything is -- at the least -- inconvenient, (unless it is that you thought
your wallet had been stolen but then you found it in your other trousers). as
long as one has absolute faith in a process or system that will correct the
wrong someday. As I guess you do -- God's kingdom on Earth and all that. Or is
that not the truth in which you believe? 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.
So I guess you didn't. Pity -- it had lots of pictures.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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 ? I'm sorry, what's the correct
percentage and how far off is his quote? Also, where did you get your correct
percentage? The number is correct but it is not a percentage. See next sentence.
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! So it's either
anarchy or total governmental control for you? I've spoken previously about
dichotomy. Shades of grey remember? Also you should hone up your sense of
humour -- that was a statement sufficiently ridiculous to indicate humour even
if a touch sarcastic. Don't take it to heart. Are you one of those guys who
thinks communism would have turned out really great if wasn't for that darn USA
and the arms race? If you think about the Mendel/Lysenko lesson above, you
should be able to see how it applies here. Communism was an experiment carried
out by people who just knew they were right, to the extent that they knew they
were justified in what they did but of course '... the truth has a way of
making itself known.' Clearly the arms race was a factor in the collapse of
Russian communism and its timing, but it was the economic
realities and the actions of a few courageous men of reason who precipitated
the event. One could note in passing that communism (or at least a version of
it) is alive and well in both China (the world's fastest growing economy?) and
Vietnam also busy becoming prosperous.
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. Economists often have the most enlightening views on
things, being trained to analyze costs and benefits. Also, I know an artist who
has excellent knowledge on natural solutions for health ailments. And you
consult a plumber when you have a tooth ache? Or a faith healer perhaps?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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. So is your denial of your
ideas and thoughts having anything to do with faith or a belief system. Somehow
I don't think you are going to get it. I find it funny that your defence of
some of my points about the "religious control" of science was only to point
out that religions exercise a religious control. First, I did not defend
'...some of my points about the "religious control" of science ...'. Second,
while I am aware that religion attempts to exercise influence over science (not
necessarily a bad thing in some matters) I am unaware that it exercises control
of science anywhere. For which we should all be grateful else we would still be
in the dark ages.
Paul D
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Paul D
---------------------------------
Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on
all webmail accounts. Find out more.
---------------------------------
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on,
when.
Other related posts:
