[geocentrism] Re: Climate change

  • From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:07:18 -0700 (PDT)

I'm glad we could agree on a few things. I have only a couple comments in red. 
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Bravo! An honest statement containing much with which -- contrary to your 
suppositions -- I agree.
  Yes -- it was getting a bit untidy. I'll try to keep my comments on a 
paragraph by paragraph basis.
  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 
  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. 
  Yes -- this I do definitely deny. I've already explained why it is necessary 
to have agreed meanings for words -- I don't think you will have forgotten but 
somehow you still seem to think you can make a word mean whatever you want it 
to mean. You cannot -- at least not if you are interested in communicating. I 
have some interesting non-dictionary definitions which I think have merit but I 
do not use them in debate directly. However, on occasion -- with explanation -- 
they can be useful to amplify the impression certain words give. See From Paul 
Deema Wed Jun 13 15:54:26 2007 in which I explained my understanding of 
'honest' to Allen D. Let me expand on this concept. I particularly like this 
definition of 'perversion' -- "The pre-occupation with one subject to the 
exclusion of all others." Most people consider perversion to be narrowly 
confined to particular activities -- which probably should not be explored on 
this forum -- but this definition widens the meaning to
 something greater than the dictionary view. For this reason I would avoid 
using this word in this way. Another is 'faith' " That which allows us to 
believe what we know is not possible". This has currency on this forum but I do 
not use it because I see such usage as inflammatory. I recently joined an 
informal philosophy class and the word 'faith' came up for discussion. The 
woman who is our mentor, drew attention to the way 'faith' has inextricably 
become associated with religious practice such that its wider meaning has been 
largely lost and that its usefulness in the wider context is thus compromised. 
This is why I decry the use of 'faith' when discussing non-religious issues.
  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. 
  Oh! Contrare! These are the two the paragraphs which earned you your 'Bravo!' 
above. I do make this proviso however. Science relies heavily upon peer review 
and especially upon successful duplication of reported experiments. This 
however, is almost totally lacking in religion and politics.
  Peer review of unproven, unprovable supposition by supporters of the same 
worldview are meaningless to truth seeking. So much science has nothing to do 
with testable-repeatable stuff but with interpreting things so they fitt the 
world-view. And that boils it down to faith.
  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. 
  I don't have a 'huge problem' -- I just object to people lumping scientific 
practice -- based on verified and verifiable evidence -- in with trust in what 
other people say with no evidence.
  When a fact is taken and interpreted according to a world-view and then the 
interpretation is presented as fact, you are not engaged in "scientific 
practice" you are engaged in "trust in what other people say with no evidence". 
The problem is, that if your world-views match, than it would be extremley hard 
to recognize the difference.
  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 
  OK -- the count is now three paragraphs. This I also see as a reasonable 
comment though I would have avoided the use of 'all'. I'll add to this however. 
I've pointed out previously that I have not directly criticised religion or 
those who follow such a philosophy, but have pointed out that so many of the 
criticisms you level at science are equally applicable to religions and those 
who follow their tenets. My intention was not to indulge in name-calling but to 
draw attention to weaknesses in your arguments.
  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. 
  Well I think the above comments largly nullify your last point here and this 
is not unique. I will admit that most of my points in the wider debate are 
where I have differed from the views expressed and I would point out that such 
differing views tend to be remembered long after the agreements -- especially 
if they are few in number -- are forgotten. But then I don't comment on 
everything. I especially avoid commenting adversly, indeed commenting at all, 
upon things which are opinion ie things which cannot be demonstrated. That 
said, this is a forum ie a place for debate. Debate involves exploring 
differences of view. You learn little from a 'discussion' where everyone agrees.
  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 
  If you are sufficiently interested to check, you'll find that this is not 
true. I have admitted that the effect is so small that it is difficult to 
detect and even more difficult to substantiate -- especially to anyone who is 
skeptical or who has a barrow to push. I have especially admitted that the 
Sun's output will be overriding. That said, it is undeniable that Man's 
activities are directly additive and that there are a number of positive 
feedback mechanisms. I don't know if you have been exposed to the phenomenon of 
positive feedback, but it is an action with which you meddle at your peril. The 
prudent man takes caution, especially if the consequences of failure to do so 
are dire.
  This is where I want to hear the evidence that makes it "undeniable" that 
mans activity is additive and the additive amount equals massive trouble that 
requires action. You are still dismissing the possiblity that the sun is solely 
responsible for any meaningfull change in global temperatures. 
  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 
  I look forward to your responce, 
  Paul D


  Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on 
all webmail accounts. Find out more.

Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.

Other related posts: