[geocentrism] Re: Climate change
- From: <marc-veilleux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Geocentric" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:41:29 -0400
The examples that I received are all the same sizes. Do you see them again in
different sizes?
Marc V.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
Sent: 19 juin 2007 15:31
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Climate change
Here is another example of very small point sizes along with larger sizes
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: j a
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 7:07 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Climate change
I'm glad we could agree on a few things. I have only a couple comments in red.
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
JA
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.
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.
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
this.
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
mine.
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
so".
I look forward to your responce,
JA
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:
