[geocentrism] Re: Climate change
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:38:51 +0100
Thanks Jake, but that is my point why you and not me? What size do estimate the
fonts to be? Does anyone else have this problem?
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: j a
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 11:20 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Climate change
They all look the same size to me.
Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
Other related posts:
