Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - DonaldD

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
1
General Comments / Re: Dem debates
« on: September 16, 2019, 12:07:38 PM »
Quote
the US has been the most open of First World countries for most of its history
Hmmm... it certainly is not true presently, nor for the past decade at the least:
https://www.npr.org/2014/10/29/359963625/dozens-of-countries-take-in-more-immigrants-per-capita-than-the-u-s

As for it being an "open lie", since I can't speak to the context of what was written, or whether it was even accurate;y paraphrased, I did qualify the statement with "for a certain value of".  Are we talking about deporting refugee claimants with hearings? Deporting refugee claimaints while the process is underway? Claimants that have broken local laws?

2
General Comments / Re: Dem debates
« on: September 15, 2019, 10:06:02 PM »
In most first world countries, those things are a given (for a certain value of "end all deportations")

3
General Comments / Re: Would anybody care to defend this Trump move?
« on: September 09, 2019, 10:03:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Seriati:
then you read what I wrote again, and still went with nonsense?   You want to point out where in my response - that's 100% clear I'm claiming this was a coordinated effort from hundreds of media sources (probably by media matters, but of that I have no proof), I said I was only talking about the WaPo?

That you claim there was a coordinated effort in no way conflicts with your misrepresentations of the WaPo story. Have you ever read your own posts?  You are quite capable of spewing 10-20 distinct partisan hackeries within a single post.

But if you want to get specific again, you asked TheDrake whether he wanted to walk back this fake news - but TheDrake very specifically attributed the article to the WaPo, so whether you meant to or not, it was the WaPo story to which you were referring.

Oh, and notwithstanding your later attempts to wriggle out of your initial misrepresentations, those latter references are quite telling
Quote
WaPo's behind a paywall for me.  I read it on about 30 different links, some of which split the anonymous sources some didn't. 
So even though some of those links "split the anonymous sources", you chose to characterize the multiple sources referenced by the WaPo as a singular source, and also conflated the person who was approached for corroboration with the initial internal and external sources.  I did not realize that you consciously made the decision to misrepresent the original article.

Oh, and if you could provide some of those "links" that didn't split the anonymous sources, that would be cool

4
General Comments / Re: Nice business you have there
« on: September 09, 2019, 08:47:21 PM »
Coming to a conclusion about you and making up a position for you are two completely different things, Crunch.  Why be so transparently dishonest?

But that's beside the point, really - why don't you have the courage to clarify your position?

5
General Comments / Re: Employer required attendance at political rally?
« on: September 09, 2019, 04:12:37 PM »
Yup, your TDS is on full display, Crunch

6
General Comments / Re: Employer required attendance at political rally?
« on: September 08, 2019, 10:32:15 PM »
Self diagnose much, Crunch?

7
General Comments / Re: Would anybody care to defend this Trump move?
« on: September 04, 2019, 11:43:35 PM »
Quote
I think you are confused about what I said, though that may be on me.  I never said I was responding to the WaPo about this one story
C'mon, Seriati, at least have the courage of your convictions.

You spent 3 paragraphs condescending to TheDrake about bringing up this article as it was so clearly unsubstantiated  propaganda... and then when you use the word "lie", that is exactly when you started generalizing?  Except the end of that very sentence belies your claim:
Quote
So the media sells a lie, ie fake news, and you jump on calling for accountability?
TheDrake was specifically calling for accountability concerning the WaPo claim that the President promised pardons for illegal activity, and you know this.  At least be honest with yourself.

8
General Comments / Re: Would anybody care to defend this Trump move?
« on: September 04, 2019, 04:51:04 PM »
As for propaganda - if the WaPo story is true, it described likely unconstitutional executive overreach, and it would be silly for news organizations not to report on the claims.

Woah. Wait. IF it’s true?  If?!!  Yeah, so you don’t know. You really don’t, do you? Neither do I. I’d like to see proof
It is a story either way - if WaPo's story turns out to be a lie, a lie about the president possibly obstructing justice, that's news, too.

9
General Comments / Re: Would anybody care to defend this Trump move?
« on: September 04, 2019, 04:50:03 PM »
No, I am very sure that Seriati claimed that WaPo was lying.  And then you claimed that he didn't claim that.

10
General Comments / Re: Would anybody care to defend this Trump move?
« on: September 04, 2019, 04:42:32 PM »
Quote
So the media sells a lie, ie fake news, and you jump on calling for accountability?
Try to keep up, Crunch

11
General Comments / Re: Would anybody care to defend this Trump move?
« on: September 04, 2019, 04:30:13 PM »
As for propaganda - if the WaPo story is true, it described likely unconstitutional executive overreach, and it would be silly for news organizations not to report on the claims.

BTW, I just reviewed a number of articles on the WaPo story - they all either mention "sources" or the equivalent, or link to the WaPo article.  Are there links you can share where only a single source is claimed?

12
General Comments / Re: Would anybody care to defend this Trump move?
« on: September 04, 2019, 04:20:42 PM »
Seriati, so you claimed that WaPo was lying without actually having read the actual source material?  You think that looks better on you?

13
General Comments / Re: BoJo Boffo or Bozo?
« on: September 04, 2019, 02:27:01 PM »
Quote
One obvious solution would be to make Northern Ireland a de facto part of the Irish Republic, and locate the customs borders between Ireland and the rest of the U.K
This also may be problematic, as it conflicts directly with the UK commitment to the Common Travel Area, a part of the Good Friday Accord and de facto part of the Constitution of the UK.

14
General Comments / Re: BoJo Boffo or Bozo?
« on: September 04, 2019, 02:20:47 PM »
The cost of clearing customs is not just the salaries and infrastructure required by border agents, but the overhead required of all companies importing into the RI and exporting to the IR.

The UK would also need to compensate the RI for the lost opportunity costs...

15
General Comments / Re: BoJo Boffo or Bozo?
« on: September 04, 2019, 01:27:49 PM »
Quote
IRRC, Ireland has veto over any Brexit agreement
Not a literal veto, but maybe an effective one... the UK has treaty obligations to the Irish Republic, but also to Northern Ireland, obligations that as a result have de facto become a part of the UK constitution. Other primary issues being that the UK must support North/South cooperation and the "all-island" economy.

But the Irish Republic (IR) is simply not going to give up unfettered access to the EU, they had no say in the brexit vote, and neither the IR nor the EU have any interest in foisting the cost of brexit on the IR. Putting up barriers between Northern Ireland and the UK is also a non-starter, and nobody wants a hard border between NI and the IR.

There is no clear solution - the backstop was simply a way of kicking that can down the street.

16
General Comments / Re: Would anybody care to defend this Trump move?
« on: September 04, 2019, 12:06:03 PM »
Quote
DonaldD there's no PROOF it was based on any source.
I was careful not to evaluate the likely veracity of the WaPo claims (because, well, they are quoting sources to which I have no access).

I was simply pointing out that you misrepresented what the WaPo actually wrote, in such a way (conveniently?) as to make what they reported sound less believable.

17
General Comments / Re: Would anybody care to defend this Trump move?
« on: September 03, 2019, 04:53:52 PM »
Quote
based on a "anonymous" source

Actually, based on "officials who attended the meetings" and "according to current and former officials involved with the project"

Technically/grammatically it's based on at least four anonymous sources - although if the grammar was poor, maybe it could be read as only two sources.  You can still believe that they were fabricated sources, or that those sources lied, but "based on a "anonymous" source" is not a correct representation of what was written in the WaPo story.

Also, this
Quote
... and sometimes the "anonymous" source describes it as a known to be a joke.

What was written in the WaPo article was different, however: "Asked for comment, a White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Trump is joking when he makes such statements about pardons."  There is nothing in that attribution to suggest it was "the" anonymous source.  In fact, wouldn't it be silly to ask the same sources for comment?  Clearly it was not, but somehow, you got there... So the source who was asked for corroboration actually did corroborate the statements, just that he/she offered a rationale for them...

18
General Comments / Re: The dumbest gun argument
« on: September 03, 2019, 04:43:22 PM »
Well, in the case of Joe Biden and the Secret Service, the "bodyguards" in question literally are law enforcement.  Biden also had no say in whether he was afforded that protection, or how they went about doing it...

19
General Comments / Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« on: August 07, 2019, 10:52:39 AM »
OK, my bad, the project "Lakhta" did span multiple countries, not just the US, and I did not catch that detail.  My apologies - I should have caught that earlier.

20
General Comments / Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« on: August 07, 2019, 10:48:18 AM »
Quote
It is true, what I cited to focuses on the actual report and data.  You still are not acknowledging that your source's implication of a $1.25 million per month ad effort was a misrepresentation? 
My source?  That quote is from the link you yourself provided to the actual text of the indictment;D

Seriously, go to your link, go to page 6, section 11.b as you pointed out, and cut and paste that section in your next response.

21
General Comments / Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« on: August 07, 2019, 09:53:21 AM »
Read it again.  What I cited to is pulling Mueller's quotes and actual data.  What you cited to was a direct misrepresentation of what it was purported to reference
Not true.  Yes, what you cited made reference to some of the Mueller report's findings.  However, where it goes wrong is using only the ad and YouTube buys in its analysis of the totality of Russian interference, and making its hand-waving conclusions based on those smallest of efforts, whereas the vast majority of Russian interference was not related to either.

Those involved spent some $1.25 million per month on ad campaigns and measured their efforts much as an ad agency would, according to the indictment.
That's not what the indictment said.  https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4380529-Internet-Research-Agency-Indictment.html  Check out page 6, Section 11(b).  Their entire budget (including employee hundreds of people as alleged by Mueller's team) reach $1.25 million by June of 2016.  That's not the ad spend amount, nor is it an average spend.
???
That is quite literally what the indictment stated, in the very section you reference, and which I quoted directly in yesterday's quote. I even bolded the reference to monthly budgets.  Nowhere does that section make reference June of 2016.  Maybe you assumed that monthly budget was consistent throughout the "project", as opposed to the monthly budget in place by the end of the election - but from where did you pull "June"?  Regardless, the words I literally quoted should have made it clear to you:
Quote
By in or around September 2016, the ORGANIZATION’s monthly budget for Project Lakhta submitted to CONCORD exceeded 73 million Russian rubles (over 1,250,000 U.S. dollars), including approximately one million rubles in bonus payments.
At any rate, my point was simply that your linked article ignored the vast majority of Russian efforts (probably about 98%, financially) so it's analysis and conclusions are flawed at their root.  This doesn't disprove their hypothesis, but it clearly shows that they have not made a convincing argument.

22
General Comments / Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« on: August 06, 2019, 04:58:17 PM »
Quote
The rest of the Russian efforts were pretty ineffectual.
Except that the link in the opening post actually ignored the vast majority of the scope of the Russian interference, and for the 1%-2% of the Russian efforts that it did address, the source just hand-waved those efforts away because, well, the internet is really big, ignoring the details and just waving around the authors' hands.

So no, you cannot claim, using this source, that the Russian efforts were pretty ineffectual.  They may have been, but that source is useless in making the case.

23
General Comments / Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« on: August 06, 2019, 02:56:17 PM »
And by misrepresented, I mean it ignored what the Russian operation was primarily doing, which was NOT purchasing ads and creating YouTube videos.

24
General Comments / Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« on: August 06, 2019, 02:50:14 PM »
Quote
DonaldD, I don't find that particularly responsive
Was it supposed to be responsive? You just posted a poorly researched article with conclusions that were convenient to your own position.  I just posted other articles, as easily searchable, that came to different conclusions.

I also later showed that your article misrepresented the scope of the Russian efforts, which were off by at least a factor of 100.

25
General Comments / Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« on: August 06, 2019, 02:47:33 PM »
From Seriati's link:
Quote
Some more numbers from the Mueller report help put the issue in perspective. Between January 2015 and August 2017, Facebook identified 470 IRA-controlled accounts out of more than 1 billion active daily users. "The IRA purchased over 3,500 advertisements," the report says, "and the expenditures totaled approximately $100,000" — roughly 0.0004 percent of Facebook's ad revenue in 2016.

But from adage.com (https://adage.com/article/digital/russia-spent-1-25m-ads-acted-agency-mueller/312424) there is a claim that in the indictment announced in February 2018, Mueller's team claimed that the 13 Russian nationals (and the 3 Russian entities) were spending 1.25 million dollars per month:
Quote
Those involved spent some $1.25 million per month on ad campaigns and measured their efforts much as an ad agency would, according to the indictment. It says the group kept track of metrics like views and comments, and measured engagement.
Who to believe?  This should be pretty easy to confirm... and it is (https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download):
Quote
Defendants and other co-conspirators carried out their activities to interfere in the U.S. political
system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
a. The ORGANIZATION employed hundreds of individuals for its online operations,
ranging from creators of fictitious personas to technical and administrative support.
The ORGANIZATION’s annual budget totaled the equivalent of millions of U.S.
dollars.

<snip>

By in or around September 2016, the ORGANIZATION’s monthly budget for
Project Lakhta submitted to CONCORD exceeded 73 million Russian rubles (over
1,250,000 U.S. dollars), including approximately one million rubles in bonus
payments.
Now, why would the creators.com article exclude the vast majority of the known funding of the Russian efforts during the 2016 election?

26
General Comments / Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« on: August 06, 2019, 02:35:08 PM »

27
General Comments / Re: Perspective on Russian Influence
« on: August 06, 2019, 02:26:32 PM »
And here's a straightforward read showing how influential Russian influence efforts really were: https://www.wired.com/story/did-russia-affect-the-2016-election-its-now-undeniable/

28
General Comments / Re: Trump's asylum rule
« on: August 04, 2019, 08:30:48 PM »
Quote
It's true that the United States has no obligation towards refugees
This is not true.  The United States is a signatory of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the key multilateral treaty in international refugee law.

It lays out, among other things, the responsibilities of signatory states to those defined as refugees under the treaty. So yes, the United States has agreed that it does have obligations to refugees.

29
General Comments / Re: Socialism
« on: August 04, 2019, 08:13:59 PM »
Quote
Socialism is, by definition, the government control, through ownership, of the means of production
That is only a part of the definition (see above for a more fulsome definition). Like it or not, there are other aspects of the word, aspects that other people believe are embodied by the word, that have nothing to do with the means of production.

Medicaid?  That's socialism, too.  The problem is that, in the USA, the word has been used pejoratively for so long that many if not most people in the country are simply incapable of discussing the word coherently.

Here's a suggestion: when those radical Democrats are talking about democratic socialism, they are not talking about the government taking over the means of production; and if you are stuck on that limited definition, you will never understand what they are going on about.

30
General Comments / Re: Socialism
« on: August 03, 2019, 10:13:43 PM »
Quote
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole
It's convenient to only pick and choose parts the definition I know... No true Scotsman, eh?

31
General Comments / Re: Socialism
« on: August 03, 2019, 07:49:22 AM »
The SEC is socialism. Getting rid of it would be a mistake.

32
General Comments / Re: Socialism
« on: August 02, 2019, 02:18:13 PM »
The Drake - define "socialism"

33
General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 31, 2019, 06:47:37 PM »
Try to keep up, Crunch.  It's as if you haven't understood a single word posted in the past 2 pages.

34
General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 31, 2019, 01:27:24 PM »
Quote
In no other scientific field would a strong theory base be called a fact, nor would people be expected to fall in line when declining to accept it
In the scientific arena, people are not expected to "fall in line".

The majority of the confusion arises in this area in the non-scientific arena and having confidence in false expertise: as one example, people continue to raise urban heat island effects on urban sited temperature stations as a reason to disbelieve AGW in general: this is an internet/general populace issue, not a scientific concern.  Anybody who brings up UHI without any knowledge of the underlying scientific history is of course not going to be taken seriously, because they are raising points that have been addressed already, and have not even bothered to review the studies in this area.

Now, if someone who is familiar with the knowledge in an area of expertise, and brings forward new points while addressing previous studies and possibly brings up issues with those earlier findings - well, their findings might not be immediately welcomed (there is of course resistance to new ideas, especially if there is a body of evidence being refuted) but such a person would not be faulted for bringing forward such a challenge.

35
You have no idea what I value, Pete.

Your question had nothing to do with any of what you just wrote.  I get that your underlying assumptions presupposed both bad intent on my part, as well as value judgments of any negative response to your question.  But an answer to your question as written does not even remotely lead where you have blindly sprinted towards.

36
General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 31, 2019, 07:49:10 AM »
Quote
And now you're showing what I was initially pointing, you're looking at an abstraction being done at a high level
No.  incorrect.  There is no abstraction. You gave UHI as a reason to disbelieve that AGW is occurring ("I believe a lot of temperate recording stations have been significantly impacted by Urban Heat Island over the past 100 years as well.") Yet at a very detailed level, these temperature stations have been demonstrated to show consistent warming with all other stations. Remove those stations, and the warming trend does not change in any significant way. 

Your very specific hypothesis was shown to be inaccurate based on studies that were designed to analyze this very specific question. This has nothing to do with any of my motives, notwithstanding you trying to make it about those.

37
You're so angry, Pete..."irrationally"?  Really?  If you ask an open ended questions, and you get a response, here's a hint: don't read the response as if the person responding knows all of your unstated assumptions, and don't read into the response imagined insults that aren't there.

 In response to the quote, though, what part of all that is in dispute, BTW? The way that "old growth" is being used above is pretty indistinguishable from "mature"

38
General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 31, 2019, 02:28:44 AM »
Quote
You do realize there are multiple layers to "no impact" as you're wanting to sell it.
You still refuse to address the basic mistake you continue to make.  You made a claim that UHI effects were so damaging to the temperature record that they were the the very first reason you had for disbelieving in AGW.

There are studies showing that the temperature stations that should be affected by UHI do not show warming inconsistent with the rest of the temperature stations. In fact, there is a slight bias in urban sites to less cooling.

This is purely a question of mathematics. If you exclude UHI affected stations, the resulting temperature anomalies are essentially unaffected.  Instead of admitting that you did not know this, and instead of then looking at these studies and maybe reevaluating part of your position, you double down on your resistance to addressing new knowledge, instead focussing on how I am "selling" the purely mathematical analyses that happen to undercut your misunderstanding, one that you should have set aside a decade ago.

39
General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 30, 2019, 07:07:03 PM »
Quote
A temperature recording station next to an air conditioner's...
You're pointed to the actual studies showing that you were mistaken, and instead of taking the opportunity to educate yourself, you rationalize why the data and analyses must be wrong, without even looking.  This tells us all we need to know about your inability to accept new ideas and conflicting data. You're basically incapable of being educated.

40
General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 30, 2019, 06:26:51 PM »
What you are still missing is that the dramatic photos and descriptions have nothing to do with the data that came out of those stations.  Those dramatic photos and descriptions (the plural of "anecdote" is not "data", BTW) were exactly what triggered those analyses that I mentioned earlier, and the analysis of the data showed no warming bias in those questionable sites, nor in urban sites in general.

That you continue to ignore the data and analyses, instead focusing on dramatic photos and your own common sense, is exactly your problem. You are basically saying "I do not care what the data for the questionable sites actually is; my common sense tells me the data must be corrupted and showing a warming bias,  even if the data says otherwise"

Seriously - just read the studies (see Muller/Koch/BEST/UHI)

41
Quote
Another difference is that an old growth forest fosters growth of other symbiotic plants, lichen, mosses and other carbon sinks
There's nothing magical about "old growth" trees vs new growth trees - over millennial time frames, most forests will suffer wild fires that end up clearing the undergrowth completely and allowing new growth from seeds.  And there is nothing inherent in new growth forest that would preclude bio diversity (whether logging companies who end up replanting have this as a priority is a completely different question.)

42
General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 30, 2019, 05:15:23 PM »
Quote
The bigger thing on mentioning UHI though was to point at it "contaminating" the data sets that have been used to produce evidence of warming in many locations, and the UHI encroached upon the reporting stations that were being used.
This tells me that you clearly did NOT understand that your initial point regarding heat islands affecting the temperature record has been shown to be without merit, and that this was demonstrated 10 years ago.  Either that, or that you are incapable of processing conflicting information, specifically that this very point that you are again making has been shown to be without basis... that, or that you are incapable of admitting it.

Seriously, you made a claim.  It has been shown to be wrong.  You are now making a point of not admitting your error.  All while bemoaning what you mistakenly perceive to be this very pattern is others

43
Quote
Can anyone here explain the CO2 difference between old growth forest and Drakes idea of covering the land with new trees?
There's little to no difference, from an old vs new growth perspective, but there is a difference between CO2 uptake between young trees and mature trees - where mature trees take up far more CO2 than younger trees.

44
Quote
Again, upward shifts in Global temperatures, rises water levels, glaciers melting, map to our clearing earths vast primordial forests, thousands of years before human techs polluted at a significant level.
I know it's still the first page, but - I don't think this is true. Notwithstanding that land clearing from thousands of years ago did NOT increase global temperatures at anywhere near the rate since the industrial revolution... Humanity currently releases on the order of 40 billion tons of CO2 annually, compared to roughly 1.5 billion tons as a result of deforested wood releasing CO2.  In some estimates, total CO2 released by the 'deforestation industry' makes up 15% of total annual human output.  Long term (once at steady state) and assuming the complete cessation of deforestation, we would need to re-forest at a rate of 7-20 times the current rate of deforestation in order to offset humanity's other CO2 output... not to mention that such a reforestation project would itself be unlikely, we would quickly run out of un-forested area to reforest.  Re-forestation/cessation of deforestation is important - it is just not a singular solution.

45
General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 30, 2019, 03:23:59 AM »
Quote
And the problem with the Global Warming research as it is, would be that most efforts are focused on the surface and up. Very little of it is looking down, except for some limited research into heat absorption from the top few hundred feet and how it may be working its way into deeper water. Wouldn't that be a kick in the teeth if a significant amount of the warming that was being experienced was not coming from above, but from below? More than 2/3rds of the Earth's surface is under water, plenty of opportunity for (deep water) "hot spots" to add their own inputs into the system.
You think this is "the problem"?  The increase in anthropogenic forcings since the industrial revolution is on the order of 20 times the total steady energy flow from the Earth's interior. This energy flow is very well understood - that it is new to you just means you are not somebody who dedicates their career to studying the relevant areas of research. To put it plainly, the Earth could double it's steady state energy output and it would have little effect on the Earth's energy budget - but we would absolutely notice that doubling, and no such event has occurred.
Quote
That's a problem with the models to date. Sure some have come close. Most have been wildly off the mark, almost universally all of which have run warm compared to what we've seen. (Test failed - Step 5)
I find this claim interesting, since your primary basis for disbelieving AGW (on the other thread) is the effect of urban heat islands on the temperature record.  Yet it has been 10 years since several studies were done on the effects of UHI on the temperature record, and those studies showed unequivocally that there was no effect - one study of which was done by a noted skeptic, funded by noted skeptics, and which caused said noted skeptic to change his mind and who now supports the idea that climate change is real and is being caused by humans (see Muller/Koch brother/BEST).  And yet, knowing that UHI effects on the temp record have been shown to be negligible, and given that was your primary reason given for disbelieving AGW, does that not give you pause? I mean, here we have an hypothesis (UHI is polluting temp record) we have a test, and the hypothesis was shown to be incorrect by several different researchers...

46
General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 28, 2019, 03:50:45 PM »
As an aside, are you ever going to lay out your position and rationale in the other thread, or are you just going to continue taking pot shots from the sides, Fenring?

47
General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 28, 2019, 03:43:14 PM »
Quote
But such consensus does not occur because we seek consensus, but rather because many people are going to be prone to make use of a theory *that works*
Read what I wrote again - especially the part you literally quoted and bolded... it said nothing about seeking consensus, so why you paraphrased that section as meaning "seeking" is beyond me.
Quote
The kind of consensus you seem to be talking about, where getting everyone to agree on something gives it weight,
And again... you seem to be projecting - where did I write that the more people agreeing, the more weight a hypothesis has?  You should really be careful about putting words into other people's mouths.

48
General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 28, 2019, 12:27:15 PM »
Since induction is not your strong point, let me spell it out to you: the goal of science is to understand the physical world, using specific methodologies.  The goal is to understand it so well (in a particular area of knowledge) that there is no longer any significant dispute as to the truth of a particular hypothesis (see cell theory, germ theory, the kinetic theory of gases, etc).

When there is no longer any significant dispute as to the truth of a particular hypothesis, do you know what that is called?  It's called consensus.

49
General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 28, 2019, 04:58:41 AM »
Oh and Crunch, we all did notice that you didn't actually disagree that the question posed in the opening post was not one of science.

50
General Comments / Re: Consensus as science
« on: July 28, 2019, 04:53:51 AM »
Quote
No, it’s not. Its the exact same logical fallacy in action.
Quote
The scientific method:

1 Make an observation.
2 Ask a question.
3 Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4 Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5 Test the prediction.
6 Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
Within 20 minutes, you managed to contradict yourself 100%.  For any other poster this might be surprising.  For you? Not at all.

Also, you completely missed my point about consensus not being part of the scientific method (hint: by listing out the basics of the scientific method and showing that "consensus" is not part of it, as I explicitly stated, you aren't actually disagreeing with my point)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13