Hard News: Event Season
194 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
And data, as we all know, can be framed to fit most any position if the position is determined before the data is gathered.
Sure. Seen that done many times. But when you get lots of different groups all producing independent data that show the same thing then my inclination is to believe the data and change the way I think. It's called a consensus of scientific opinion for a reason.
Once such a consesus is out there then folks arguing are doing so for reasons other than a desire to open minds.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
a paintball gun
You mean those coloured dots behind each boat aren't paintball cannon splashes????
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
a paintball gun
You mean those coloured dots behind each boat aren’t paintball cannon splashes????
May as well be. The directional wind ones can work with this too. The virtual spectator software can now be adapted for the new Paintball Race. And Luke was was feeling inadequate at his business prowess. He needn't have worried.
-
Matthew Hooton, in reply to
Conspiracy. Of course.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
Once such a consesus is out there then folks arguing are doing so for reasons other than a desire to open minds.
But you do know that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.
Science is not consensus ; consensus is not science.
Regardless of the issue being discussed, the real issue is usually the lack of agreement on the “rules of engagement”.If logical fallacies are permitted , it’s just a waste of time.
-
ActiveRecord pluralization: what's the point?
(This is the non-sequitur thread, right, and somebody might have a view)
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
pieces of eights...
I’ll have to have a rethink on how to create
more opportunities for the workers.Mines in the water!
- keeps the munitions lobby happy!
...and Galleys!!
We're renowned for our rowers,
aren't we? -
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Conflation or reduction...
Science is not consensus;
consensus is not sciencebut that only leaves, er, conscience...
and other agreeable thoughts.
;- ) -
Farmer Green, in reply to
Pope Francis has written a long, open letter to the founder of La Repubblica newspaper, Eugenio Scalfari, stating that non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences.
Responding to a list of questions published in the paper by Mr Scalfari, who is not a Roman Catholic, Francis wrote: “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.
“Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Science is not consensus ; consensus is not science.
That almost sounds true - however it is in fact bollocks.
As someone actually doing science day to day and involved in funding and dissemination of science I can tell you and anyone else who might care - that science is most definitely a result of forming a consensus of hypothesis and model based on multiple observations by multiple methods.
That is consensus at work, it is the way science works. But I'm sure you'll come up with another quote to support your open mind.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
data, as we all know, can be framed to fit most any position if the position is determined before the data is gathered.
This point is being hammered by Peter Gluckman who says (of government depts.)-
"worryingly, some officials have limited understanding of the scientific process of knowledge production , or were uncertain about it. They were not clear on how research-based evidence could be used to support policy formation".Something not so good has happened to science education in Godzone , or so it seems.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
That is consensus at work, it is the way science works
Yep that seems to be the problem.
Now , about that logical fallacy that you were employing-what do you have to say? -
Bart Janssen, in reply to
what do you have to say?
You are presenting the data and models produced by a consensus of scientists as if it was an opinion based vote. That is deceptive and completely inappropriate, you are trying to deceive your audience into thinking scientific consensus is the same as a vote at your local rotary club - that is nonsense and if you had any resepct for the importance of the subjects under discussion you would not present such a deceptive argument. I hope my utter contempt for such a tactic is clear.
The reality is that scientific consensus is reached by rigorous peer review, by rigorous retesting of data and models. These are real data, not opinions at a meeting. It is not a vote. It is that multiple methods and multiple analyses reach the same conclusion, that is consensus.
That you reduce yourself to such dishonest presentation of something as important as scientific consensus is a mark of the value of your argument.
And with that I will stop because this is not the thread for this.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
a result of forming a consensus of hypothesis
That seems fine, but then what?
Surely the next step is falsification of the Null Hypothesis.
It is knowledge that we seek isn't it-not policy outcomes? -
Chris Waugh, in reply to
“Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”
Interesting.
All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God's sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.
Romans 2:12 - 16
But one does not often hear that in church, at least not when I was growing up. I even had one person respond with "But my Bible college said..."
Pope Francis and St Paul: Be excellent to each other!
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
Fair enough.
You cannot say why the consensus can not be wrong. Which was my point- it's a logical fallacy. -
And with that I will stop because this is not the thread for this.
There should be no thread for this :)
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
One could almost be forgiven for thinking that the Roman Catholic church intends to be catholic "going forward".
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
Wow! You sound serious. Americas Cup and political musical chairs are just circus aren't they?
-
Old farmer brown here is mixing up the scientific process.
He is framing the "outlier scientific opinion" as the climate denier. Because there are folk out there who consider that climate warming has a very high probability of occurring, the denier is trying to form a "consensus". They are having a bit of a battle at the moment. Lack of sufficient (ie none at the moment) solid evidence seems to be a bit of a problem.
However, what Bart is suggesting (I think) is the way science moves to a different beat when something profound, interesting and very likely is against the current consensus on a "certain scientific description" has a startling effect on that consensus. Then, when others begin to play with this new piece of information and find that it might actually explain the"certain scientific description" in a better way, then a new consensus - eventually - is found.
Farmer brown is trying to bypass that system. And that is the toxic bit.
-
Luke Williamson, in reply to
And a competition to design the best shore-based trebuchet for launching paint bombs at the boats. Yes, I can see it all coming together now. Perhaps a flock of mini-subs prowling the waters ?
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
shore-based trebuchet
Spectator participation! Oh I seriously want a trebuchet someday, launching paint bombs at America's cup yachts sound like a great excuse.
Maybe we could have the marks decided by online spectator vote instead of boring logical yachting rules.
-
Islander, in reply to
Perhaps a flock of mini-subs prowling the waters ?
And robotic sharks!
And a genuine kraken! Or a colossal squid! Both!
Let's get some *real* involvment going among the general populace! (aka *betting on survivors*...) -
Bart Janssen, in reply to
kraken
And we could get Liam Neeson to start each race by shouting ...
-
Sacha, in reply to
the boats now have there origins in Polynesian technology. It is a refinment of the technology that alowed the great migration.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.