For my Libertarian friends

Finnforest wrote: You got it Rob.  Logan, what is your novel about?

It's my interpretation of Paradise Lost in a science fiction setting. It has strong Libertarian themes and in my version the Devil's the good guy. (as I believe he is in the original, but then again, I have never been good at interpreting literature.)

2.71828183 wrote: thellama73 wrote: Re: environmental change. I am not at all convinced about this man made global warming thing. It seems to me taht there is not all that much evidence for it and the fact that some people are so eager to stifle all opposing views strikes me as suspicious. "Debate's over! We win! Look over here, please, while we assume control of all aspects of industry." If the numbers that many experts have produced are correct, in order to make any significant difference we would essentially have to regress to pre-industrial revolution technology. I think we better be pretty damn sure before we take such a drastic step. It also doesn't help that people like Al Gore refuse to follow their own advice on conservation. Kind of puts a damper on their credibility. Well, you should be convinced.  Denying global warming is a position on an intellectual level with denying evolution.  Scientists say "debate's over!" because, within the scientific community, the debate is over.  It is simple ignorance to say that there is not much evidence, as, despite what those who deny global warming will say, scientists do not just decide what to believe on a whim.  As explained by Thomas Kuhn in his incredibly important book The Structures of Scientific Revolutions, it is actually quite a long and involved process for a new paradigm to take hold in science, as global warming has done. As a general rule, laypeople don't challenge the findings of scientists.  There's a very good reason for this: doing truly meaningful, innovative scientific research today requires an extremely high degree of specialization that can only be achieved by years of preparation (college, graduate school through to a PhD, and then a post-doctoral position).  The reason this level of specialized training is needed is that, in order to truly understand scientific findings deeply, in all their implications and support, you need very specific skill sets.  These skills are possessed by and large only by the specialists within each field.  They are almost entirely absent in the general population.  And yet we see two areas in which laypeople challenge the scientific validity of issues which are, let me say again, completely decided within the scientific community as being true (even if not all the details are ironed out*).  We see many religious people who deny evolution because they can't square it with their view of the bible as literally true, and we see many conservative people who deny global warming because it doesn't square with their opposition to government regulation of industry.  In both cases, the primary motivation for the opposition is political, rather than scientific (since, of course, the people making the challenges by and large aren't scientists).  Also, in both cases, the propaganda machines aiding these denial efforts claim loudly enough that "there is little evidence for the theory" or "there are fatal flaws in the theory" that people such as yourself are duped into believing it.  *this is much less of a caveat than it seems; there are no scientific paradigms in which all the details are ironed out (which is why scientific research will continue indefinitely so long as humans remain extant). If you are interested in reading up on the evidence for global warming, here are some very handy links: http://www.realclimate.org/ http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/evidenceforwarming.htm http://environmentalism.suite101.com/article.cfm/evidence-of-global-warming And check this wikipedia article for confirmation that there truly is consensus within the scientific community: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change Key quote: With the release of the revised statement[95] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[2][3] I created this account just because I'm incredibly bothered by the willingness people show in mistrusting scientists when it doesn't support their political/religious ideologies.  It's almost never justified.  Even if global warming proves false, the deniers will not be able to say that they held a rational position.  Thinking that you know better than the people with the skill sets to undertake, understand, analyze, and draw conclusions from the research that supports global warming is simply the height of arrogance.  I don't tell car mechanics how to do their job, so why should I presume to be able to tell scientists how to do theirs?

Do you live your life according to pre-industrial revolution methods? Do you eschew gasoline, plastic and petroleum products? Are you a vegetarian, in order to cut down on methane gas? These are the measures that your precious experts say are required to save us from global warming. If you believe the science but do not live this lifestyle you, sir, are a hypocrite.

Also, your claim that there is no dissent among scientists is ridiculous. I've read books by several of these non-existent people. I usually trust wikipedia, but not when it comes to highly charged current events. Most scientists are funded by government grants. Most scientists are also human. If the people writing the checks say "push global warming" I would expect exactly the behaviour we are now seeing.


Edited by thellama73 - July 28 2010 at 21:43

JJLehto wrote: Just got to the bottom did you create this solely to contribute to this specific discussion?? That is dedication!

Yes.  I'm a science major, and the arrogance and disrespect people (especially in America) have for scientists is something I find absolutely disgusting.

(if you'll notice my location, you might notice that I'm currently in an area where there's more opposition to evolution than is normal even for the US)

Epignosis wrote: Awesome.  Scientists (who get their funding from a variety of sources) get to think for me! Better follow the orders of the men in the white coats, gentlemen.  They know what's best for all of us in this madhouse.

You're right, everyone should think through everything for themselves.  I for one refuse to accept general relativity until I'm convinced of the evidence in its favor.  I don't trust the world's brightest physicists to get it right!

It sounds absurd when I put it like that, but it's no different than doing it for evolution, or global warming.  We take scientific results for granted every day.  We trust them as long as it's convenient for us (e.g. the physics that goes into making cars, or the research that drives the FDA to accept or reject certain drugs, and on and on), but as soon as it's inconvenient for our politics, we reject their findings.  Why?  What's the scientific difference between the groupings?


(yes, I know that general relativity may be on its way out.  But before it began down that road, there was no good reason for the general populace to challenge it, just as there is no good reason now for the general populace to challenge global warming and evolution)

Finnforest wrote: I don't believe it's as cut and dried as you do (human cause), nor has it had the time evolution theory has, nor has it remained free of political influence and demagoguery, to the point where solutions need to be toned down and carefully pursued, but....I know better than to argue with a true believer.  I've got friends like you.....so I've heard this all before.

Why don't you think it's this cut and dried?  The world's leading climate scientists do, overwhelmingly.  What do you know that they don't?  That's what bugs me most about people who won't accept the findings of scientists.  If you aren't going to trust them in their findings*, you must know something they don't.  That's why I refer to the refusal to accept such findings as arrogance: you are claiming to know better than a bunch of people who are more highly trained than you, more knowledgeable about the subject than you are, and just all around in a better position to draw conclusions about such matters.  (The "you" here is an impersonal you).

You are right that it hasn't had the time evolution has had, but it is held in similar stature by the scientific community (though global warming doesn't have the honor of being the glue that holds together an entire field of science**), and in particular the community of climate scientists.  I accept their authority in the matter just as I accept the authority of paleontologists in telling me about dinosaurs, or anthropologists in telling me about ancient civilizations.


*once they have reached consensus among themselves, of course.

**I am head over heels in love with Charles Darwin and will miss no opportunity to sing his praises

But anyway, welcome to the board....do you like prog?  Stick around if you do!

Would I be browsing here if I didn't?

Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote:   The protection of negative rights necessitates some positive rights.  You have no problem with a government-funded military to protect our lives.  Is this not a positive right?  The soldiers don't train and protect us for free.  And if the government did not have citizens willing to become soldiers, then the government does what it did not fifty years ago.  On top of this, for our military to be feasible, we must fund research, vehicles, aircraft, weapons, and various other crucial aspects of our defense.  Thus, it is clear that by establishing such a negative right, a positive right comes into play.  Or, since you oppose the death penalty, for the government to protect us against murderers, we must collectively fund places to house and feed these convicted felons (which, by the way, is the government restricting a person's right to liberty, which comes right after the right to life). As for "food insurance," I'm not sure what you mean by that.  If I take you to mean what I think you mean, I would say no, except that I think localized soup kitchens could be a reasonable thing- again, funded by a consumption tax that replaces the income tax.  Even better, with all the perfectly good food that goes to waste from some restaurants and grocery stores, such a thing might not even require much funding.  All that said, this is assuming that there were no charitable organizations out there, and there are, and they do a great job (from my experience working with them, anyway).  But all this talk about rights means very little if you have nothing to eat. Well first off I don't support a tax funded military, so I'm no so sure that critique really applies to me. However, we institute a government to protect our rights.  We have a right to not be aggressed upon, thus the government has a military to ensure that either it does not happen or that appropriate response is possible. So the institution of military arises to fulfill this natural right.  With healthcare however, there's no right being protected. We don't have a right to not get cancer, nor do we have a right to an MRI.  Our right to life requires nothing of anybody else. Military actions are enacted in retaliation for when that right is violated, which is the justification for it. For government to step in and act, it would have to be in retaliation to some right violation, but none exist in the medical realm. In the case of prisons, I again don't support the idea that they should be funded by taxes. Prisoners relinquish a claim to their rights (proportionally) when they violate those of others. If you pay for treatment and do not receive it, it is proper that the one you payed be forced to treat you or return your money. It is not proper for you to initiate force and require that one to treat you without pay. I bring up food insurance because you're saying people have a right to minimum medical care as a derivative of their right to life. By the same reasoning people deserve a right to minimum food. So you would support a local government food insurance program which takes tax money and uses it to feed those in need.  Question: If charitable organizations are sufficient for providing food, why not for providing medical care? I have not espoused a right to medical care (if you recall, I was the one who used the very analogy about grocery stores being required to give away free food to the hungry as an argument against national health care).  I was interested in seeing how others here interpret "right to life." To continue this dialogue, let me ask this:  Suppose a contagious disease breaks out.  Does the government then have a role to stopping its spread?  You said no one has a right to not get cancer (I agree, but then again the wording is kind of silly), yet suppose cancer were contagious?  Would the government have a role in preventing the spread of a contagious cancer or treating those who get it? Also, how do you propose to fund the military and prisons? As for your question about medical care and food provided by charity, well, feeding people isn't exactly a specialized skill that takes about a decade of costly schooling, requires extremely expensive insurance, and is a higher risk field.

JJLehto wrote: Well that is one hell of a claim llama, but I have been wanting to get back into reading for a while. It is on my list.

I trust you're aware that the claim "one of the finest works in the English language" refers to Milton's Paradise Lost and not my novel.

I'm not a huge fiction reader Logan, but I'll think about it!!  
 

thellama73 wrote: Do you live your life according to pre-industrial revolution methods? Do you eschew gasoline, plastic and petroleum products? Are you a vegetarian, in order to cut down on methane gas? These are the measures that your precious experts say are required to save us from global warming. If you believe the science but do not live this lifestyle you, sir, are a hypocrite.

Even if I were a hypocrite, that would be entirely irrelevant to my argument, so I'm not sure why you're launching a character assault rather than a reasoned response to me.

Also, your claim that there is no dissent among scientists is ridiculous. I've read books by several of these non-existent people.

Except I never said that.  I said that there is consensus of scientists that global warming is happening and is anthropogenic in origin, and that the main thrust of dissent is not scientific.  And I am absolutely right about that.

I usually trust wikipedia, but not when it comes to highly charged current events.

That particular article is quite well-cited, and even quotes all of the organizations that believe in anthropogenic global warming.

Most scientists are funded by government grants. Most scientists are also human. If the people writing the checks say "push global warming" I would expect exactly the behaviour we are now seeing.

This is an empty claim unless you can actually provide evidence of corruption within science.  Climategate doesn't count, since it's been widely and definitively debunked, and is not even remotely scandalous.

2.71828183 wrote: You're right, everyone should think through everything for themselves.  I for one refuse to accept general relativity until I'm convinced of the evidence in its favor.  I don't trust the world's brightest physicists to get it right! It sounds absurd when I put it like that, but it's no different than doing it for evolution, or global warming.

I don't think it sounds absurd at all. I'm sure you don't need reminding that Einstein was wrong about a lot of things. (the Cosmological Constant, anyone?)

I always hear this claim, which boils down to "Mr. X is better informed, therefore Mr. X is correct." Hogwash and malarkey, and balderdash too! Scientific consensus among the "well informed" has been consistently wrong on almost every issue in man's history. It is only very recently that they've started to fare a little better (or so we think, time will tell.) I find attitudes such as yours extremely arrogant. "We know all about the climate, you see, because we have these diplomas, pieces of paper which allow us to faultlessly understand even the most complex things in the universe such as global climates."

Equality 7-2521 wrote: @ e: It's best not to come in here stinking of arrogance and talk as if we don't understand science.

It was not my intention to give off that impression, and I will try to avoid doing so in the future.

I actually think that anyone who accepts General Relativity without examining the evidence in its favor is committing the intellectual error. How can one accept such a counterintuitive, and honestly not understandable to casual acquaintances , merely on authority?