Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not the one saying 97%. I would be confident is saying a healthy majority though.
well my friend, you did bring up the Scientific method.... and you are in defense of CAGW theory... and my point is, there really is a "scientific peer reviewed paper" that was published that made the 97% claim. its an utter and complete falsehood and its stands as this standard bearer for the CAGW cause.
my point is this is so politicized that it is no longer science.
So because I am unaware of a quote from a topic that is not really in my field of expertise that I haven't spent a lot of time researching my viewpoint and experience working in a scientific field becomes "silly rantings"?
Does not seem very logically sound(actually its a blatant fallacy) to me but whatever floats your boat.
you are the one defending scientific method and the scientists devoted to CAGW. but you don't know the nuance of the subject you are defending.
well my friend, you did bring up the Scientific method.... and you are in defense of CAGW theory... and my point is, there really is a "scientific peer reviewed paper" that was published that made the 97% claim. its an utter and complete falsehood and its stands as this standard bearer for the CAGW cause.
my point is this is so politicized that it is no longer science.
Someone said earlier it was claimed to be 97% of IPCC scientists, how far off was that from the actual ratio of the IPCC. If it was within the margin of error you can't really blame people publishing a paper for how non scientists misinterpret it.
Look back a few posts where I said no system is perfect, people will slip through the cracks because it is a system ran by imperfect humans.
Good news! The SM accounts for this as well and the papers and ideas that slip through the cracks get ironed out over time as it becomes apparent that they are non replicable and/or non applicable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
you are the one defending scientific method and the scientists devoted to CAGW. but you don't know the nuance of the subject you are defending. that's my point.
Don't need to, because there is limited time in the day, and each person cannot be an expert in every possible field or even sub field, I am content to go with the consensus position of people who ARE experts in the field and DO spend their entire lives researching it, if said consensus changes it is no skin off my back to change my position as well.
What, I should take the opinions of random politically motivated forum posters over people who spend their lives doing the actual research?
I bet a lot of those climate scientists wouldn't know how to rig up a neural net or genetic algorithm, but they would probably take my word for it if I told them.
Because its fishy when you have a large majority of scientists in the specific field in question in agreement, while in disagreement you see a handful of scientists who are funded by oil companies, and a handful of scientists in unrelated fields. By the way I have seen the grant process, scientists are not getting filthy rich off of it...
No on says they are getting rich. It's just the political reality when there are billions of dollars being allocated yearly, all predicated on an alarmist outcome. If you think that is conducive to impartial, blind science, you are naive. It's nothing to do with some get rich scheme, it is just the reality of how science gets funded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
this is NOT an ad-populum fallacy, as the ad-populum fallacy applies only to a population of non experts.
I have not seen any definition of the ad-populum fallacy that requires only non-experts for it to be used as a logical fallacy. It's an appeal to popularity and that is EXACTLY how it is being used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
Which is why one of the primary purposes of following the SM is control of bias. It is why the null hypothesis exists, why peer review exists, etc... etc...
Religion / Philosophy:Google "Environmentalism as religion" sometime. This notion has been around since at least the first Earth Day in 1970 and possibly longer. It certainly predates the modern climate change movement.
Politics: What do you call 97% and this appeal to consensus over skepticism? What do you call the political reality of billions of dollars of funding (YEARLY) predicated on their being an impending crisis?
If you diminish the crisis or question it in any way, those dollars go away, careers and reputations get put into serious jeopardy and too many people have a vested interest in the alarmist narrative continuing for reasons of politics over hard science for it to stop.
Someone said earlier it was claimed to be 97% of IPCC scientists, how far off was that from the actual ratio of the IPCC. If it was within the margin of error you can't really blame people publishing a paper for how non scientists misinterpret it.
Look back a few posts where I said no system is perfect, people will slip through the cracks because it is a system ran by imperfect humans.
Good news! The SM accounts for this as well and the papers and ideas that slip through the cracks get ironed out over time as it becomes apparent that they are non replicable and/or non applicable.
Don't need to, because there is limited time in the day, and each person cannot be an expert in every possible field or even sub field, I am content to go with the consensus position of people who ARE experts in the field and DO spend their entire lives researching it, if said consensus changes it is no skin off my back to change my position as well.
What, I should take the opinions of random politically motivated forum posters over people who spend their lives doing the actual research?
I bet a lot of those climate scientists wouldn't know how to rig up a neural net or genetic algorithm, but they would probably take my word for it if I told them.
its funny. our approaches are so far apart.... that doesn't mean I don't respect you and what you do.
I am not a scientist. However, im a geeky dude that reads scientific papers on a very wide range of subjects. I love science. its life affirming and amazing. so when I read papers that are supposed to be science and its blatantly obvious the end was decided before the subject was studied, it bothers me.
that doesn't happen often, but in CAGW, it happens a lot. I know because I have spent time looking at the issue. its saddens me because there is a lot here to learn and a lot of ground to cover. but fighting thru the clutter is impossible on this subject. its utterly dishonest and coorupted by the money dished out in the billions by governments all over the world.
I have not seen any definition of the ad-populum fallacy that requires only non-experts for it to be used as a logical fallacy. It's an appeal to popularity and that is EXACTLY how it is being used.
"This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is true, based solely on the fact that it is a widely popular thought. In the argumentum ad populum, the population's experience, expertise or authority is not taken into consideration by the author"
"This fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the justification of a belief and its widespread acceptance by a given group of people. When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of supposed experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority; if the appeal is to the beliefs of a group of respected elders or the members of one's community over a long period of time, then it takes on the form of an appeal to tradition."
Note that the people who are actually on the ground doing the research must NEVER base their results on authority alone as that would indeed be fallacious. However, for a non expert who has limited time in the day, accepting the consensus opinion is fine, as long as in doing so you recognize that you personally do NOT have the full knowledge of the field in question. A good example is, if a Doctor diagnoses you with cancer, you are probably not going to the go to medical school and become a Doctor yourself so that you can then verify your condition without appealing to authority, rather you will take the Doctors opinion at face value. This is the difference between processing the results of someone else's research as a layperson and personally pushing the boundaries of research as a scientist.
No but I do believe when it does fail, it will self correct over time, and when it does I do not have a problem changing my own positions in response because I am not forming an ego attachment to them(bias). No perfect system exists remember.
its funny. our approaches are so far apart.... that doesn't mean I don't respect you and what you do.
I am not a scientist. However, im a geeky dude that reads scientific papers on a very wide range of subjects. I love science. its life affirming and amazing. so when I read papers that are supposed to be science and its blatantly obvious the end was decided before the subject was studied, it bothers me.
that doesn't happen often, but in CAGW, it happens a lot. I know because I have spent time looking at the issue. its saddens me because there is a lot here to learn and a lot of ground to cover. but fighting thru the clutter is impossible on this subject. its utterly dishonest and coorupted by the money dished out in the billions by governments all over the world.
It isn't that sad, the papers slipping through the cracks that will not be borne out empirically will get weeded out over time and the views will adjust to fit. The cutting edge of any scientific field is always a bit more wild west than the more mundane parts, sh*t - just look at some of the crazy QM hypotheses, but over time they are refined until they too become mundane.
It isn't that sad, the papers slipping through the cracks that will not be borne out empirically will get weeded out over time and the views will adjust to fit. The cutting edge of any scientific field is always a bit more wild west than the more mundane parts, sh*t - just look at some of the crazy QM hypotheses, but over time they are refined until they too become mundane.
I am sorry my friend. that just isn't true in climate science. they don't slip thru cracks. they affirm the preconceived end.
"This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is true, based solely on the fact that it is a widely popular thought. In the argumentum ad populum, the population's experience, expertise or authority is not taken into consideration by the author"
"This fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the justification of a belief and its widespread acceptance by a given group of people. When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of supposed experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority; if the appeal is to the beliefs of a group of respected elders or the members of one's community over a long period of time, then it takes on the form of an appeal to tradition."
Note that the people who are actually on the ground doing the research must NEVER base their results on authority alone as that would indeed be fallacious. However, for a non expert who has limited time in the day, accepting the consensus opinion is fine, as long as in doing so you recognize that you personally do NOT have the full knowledge of the field in question. A good example is, if a Doctor diagnoses you with cancer, you are probably not going to the go to medical school and become a Doctor yourself so that you can then verify your condition without appealing to authority, rather you will take the Doctors opinion at face value. This is the difference between processing the results of someone else's research as a layperson and personally pushing the boundaries of research as a scientist.
No but I do believe when it does fail, it will self correct over time, and when it does I do not have a problem changing my own positions in response because I am not forming an ego attachment to them(bias). No perfect system exists remember.
Seriously? You are going to use Wikipedia as a source when referencing logical fallacies? I at least looked for a University to provide a definition
Seriously? You are going to use Wikipedia as a source when referencing logical fallacies? I at least looked for a University to provide a definition
What specifically is wrong with Wikkipedia's take?
Or are you just going to use the ad hominem fallacy to criticize the linked descriptions of other fallacies? Too funny!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
