A Response to the Science Be Damned Faction!

[Charlie Prime]

...I will ignore your posts.

Be true to your word and click here: https://www.theparacast.com/forum/members/charlie-prime.6824/ignore

 

[Muadib]

Be true to your word and click here: https://www.theparacast.com/forum/members/charlie-prime.6824/ignore

I said I would ignore your posts, not completely ignore you, and I don't remember making any promises or guarantees. This is a public forum, after all, if you don't like me commenting on your posts, you're free to stop posting or just ignore me.

Why don't you defend your position instead, or is that too difficult?

 

[Jimi H.]

Anarchists do not. They believe in the Non-Aggression Principle, and work for the abolition of slavery.

Yes, in fact Thoreau's Civil Disobedience was more or less the white paper for American anarchistic resistance to slavery, and against warfare.

One thing is believing in a principles, and striving to follow a strict path, but when it comes to reality, what do you think generates less violence in a society as a whole?:
Having no police force, or having an (uncorrupt) police force?

 

[Muadib]

Yes, in fact Thoreau's Civil Disobedience was more or less the white paper for American anarchistic resistance to slavery, and against warfare.

One thing is believing in a principles, and striving to follow a strict path, but when it comes to reality, what do you think generates less violence in a society as a whole?:
Having no police force, or having an (uncorrupt) police force?

Is such a thing even possible, given human nature?

 

[Charlie Prime]

Having a police force that is responsive to customers and abides the Non-Aggression Principle is best.

 

[Jimi H.]

Responsive to customers? Heh, there are many ways to interpret 'customer' and 'police force' in such a scenario, is there not?

Who gives the mandate to police anything btw, and what are the rules the police force should abide by? Non-aggression is best, ok, but what happens when a situation is worse than best?

PS: What if you're too poor to rent a police-man? No justice for the poor then?

 

[Jimi H.]

Is such a thing even possible, given human nature?

We're definitly dealing with ideal situations here

 

[Mortlach]

So yeah, those crazy non-sciency people!

 

[Charlie Prime]

An ideal is something one strives for, even though it may never be achieved. We can strive for a world free of rape and murder even though such a thing is actually not possible.

Right now police serve the the interests of corporations who build prisons, and the millions of lawyers, bail bondsmen, judges, court secretaries, and auto insurance company stockholders who feed off the trillion dollar "justice" industry. The police do not serve the average person walking down the street.

The remedy is a situation where security providers compete to provide customers with better service at lower cost, the opposite of monopoly.

 

[Muadib]

It might work, at least in theory, but that doesn't address the issue of those who cannot afford to pay for protection, who takes care of them or are they just left to fend for themselves?

I'm also reminded of the for profit fire fighting companies that sprung up on the frontier during the United States Western expansion. There was certainly plenty of competition going on, so much so that it wasn't unheard of for a building to burn to the ground because two competing private fire brigades showed up at the same time and instead of putting out the fire, they proceeded to argue and sometimes get into physical altercations over who would put out the fire and reap the rewards. I agree that the "justice" industry has become an almost entirely for profit endeavor, but there has to be a middle ground somewhere between what we have now and what you seem to be suggesting.

 

[Mortlach]

So the origional topic of this thread interests me. Anyone else in the room?

 

[Muadib]

So the origional topic of this thread interests me. Anyone else in the room?

Sure, but there's not much to say to "those crazy non sciency people." Maybe if you made a more expansive post on the topic, you might get some replies. Not trying to be a jerk, just being honest with you.

 

[ManitobaCanuk]

This thread quickly turned politico..Back on topic...I know everybody has an opinion, they are like belly buttons we all have one (except pod people...I guess ). I am at a loss as to why and how this anti-science movement got traction. Are all members of this misguided cabal the ultra religious? Do these people just go to sleep in chemistry/physics/biology class? What kind of person does these hostile anti-science rants. What is the demographics? I have read many of them on various boards around the ether and they all have the same undertones. These people are angry, angry people. Like the idea of natural selection and the L.H.C. just molested their cat. They are emotionally damaged goods. I guess you can't debate by using logic and reason with people who don't use logic/reason to form their opinions. All these hostile creationist trolls can't all be stupid or lacking a frontal lobe, what is the root cause of this? Is their childhood religious conditioning so strong as to make them blind to what is observable and real. I have never been able to hold a constructive or even very amiable debate with one these people. They are happy to be ignorant, happy to be misinformed, happy to be living in the dark ages. How do we bring them at least into the 20th century.

 

[Randall]

Minarchists (libertarians) believe violence is a good way to solve social problems, and that monopolies are good. They believe one group should have a monopoly on violence. They believe one man may own another man.

Anarchists do not. They believe in the Non-Aggression Principle, and work for the abolition of slavery.

I personally believe that anarchism is misunderstood and demonized by the competing ideologies ( but what else is new ). My view is that everything boils down to a form of anarchism in some form or another anyway. That is to say, there are so many versions of anarchism that no single version can claim to be authoritative, especially since authoritarianism is generally seen as the antithesis of anarchy in the first place.

As a consequence, when we distill it all down to the most fundamental of principles, we find that it is the freedom of the individual to do ( or at least attempt to do ) as he or she chooses, including not voting or voting, pursuing one's dreams and ambitions, forming alliances, making compromises, following or not following orders, disagreeing or agreeing with others ... whatever ... that is at the heart of anarchy, and a really interesting thing about this state of affairs is that it's pretty much how everything works anyway.

It's been my experience that the more this situation is contemplated, the more true it seems to be, and the resulting feeling is difficult to put into words. A rather delicious irony is that those who reject this fundamental version of anarchism are failing to realize that they are in fact participants, and that only by agreeing with it can they hope to be overcome it.

 

[Jimi H.]

So, about the original topic, here's the problem in a nutshell: BBC coverage of IPCC climate report criticised for sceptics' airtime | Environment | The Guardian

BBC were unable to find any climatologists who could act as opposition to the recent conclusions of the IPPC, so they went out of their way to find opposition, eventually using a geologist from Australia who is openly sponsored by non-scientific political interest groups, including the Heartland Institute:

Complaints focused on the World at One programme on Radio 4 on Friday, which featured the Australian sceptic Bob Carter. A retired geologist, he leads a group called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and is funded by US libertarians. His words also dominated several subsequent news bulletins.

Why didn't they simply conclude that they could not find relevant scientific opposition, and make that the story? No, they had to get their bit of controversy to the front page.

It's exactly the same story when a Danish newspaper gave massive editorial space to Bjorn Lomborg: scientists were flabbergasted, but the paper created controversy, as it had wanted to. Controversy sells papers.

 

[Jimi H.]

..I am at a loss as to why and how this anti-science movement got traction. ..What is the demographics? ..I guess you can't debate by using logic and reason with people who don't use logic/reason to form their opinions.

Well put, yea, I've been fairly incredulous too.

..
All these hostile creationist trolls can't all be stupid or lacking a frontal lobe, what is the root cause of this? Is their childhood religious conditioning so strong as to make them blind to what is observable and real. I have never been able to hold a constructive or even very amiable debate with one these people. They are happy to be ignorant, happy to be misinformed, happy to be living in the dark ages..

Yea, the willed ignorance/complete disinterest in fact is insidious, I have zero patience left with these kinds of posters.

I think they pick up on sound-bites here and there (FOX news/religious groups/political agitators?) and then they just repeat them over and over and over. It's almost like a mass-psychosis.

 

[ManitobaCanuk]

So, about the original topic, here's the problem in a nutshell: BBC coverage of IPCC climate report criticised for sceptics' airtime | Environment | The Guardian

BBC were unable to find any climatologists who could act as opposition to the recent conclusions of the IPPC, so they went out of their way to find opposition, eventually using a geologist from Australia who is openly sponsored by non-scientific political interest groups, including the Heartland Institute:


Why didn't they simply conclude that they could not find relevant scientific opposition, and make that the story? No, they had to get their bit of controversy to the front page.

It's exactly the same story when a Danish newspaper gave massive editorial space to Bjorn Lomborg: scientists were flabbergasted, but the paper created controversy, as it had wanted to. Controversy sells papers.

How can anyone believe anything the IPCC says after "Climategate". They were caught falsifying data. Their emails were hacked and leaked. I know I read them. They were caught admitting to each other about screwing with the data. Boy do people have short memories. Almost ALL research scientists get their grant money from the government. That is just a fact of life. It is the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules. You will not get funding if you are counter to the government agenda. Not conspiracy but fact. Most people do not know that only a small portion of the IPCC members are actually scientists, most are administrators and policy advisors. Their is FAR from a consensus on climate change. Don't believe what people tell you, do your own research, think for yourself.

 

[Mortlach]

Sure, but there's not much to say to "those crazy non sciency people." Maybe if you made a more expansive post on the topic, you might get some replies. Not trying to be a jerk, just being honest with you.

Just trying to remind people what the actual topic of the thread was.

 

[Mortlach]

I think the anti science lobby has a huge advantage over critically minded people. Those who are critically minded and exhibit any trace of common sense are bound by reason. If we have a point to make and justify, we generally can and do. Why? Most likely because sense and reason teaches us that you can't expect others to take seriously what you have to say unless you can explain to them exactly what you are saying and exactly how and why you are saying it. The anti science people however are not bound by such dilligence and rigour. They can just say stuff and if they want to appear credible, they can usually find someone to spin an argument in their favour. In the case of the religious fundamentalists, let's take creationists as a wonderful example. No explanation is needed, they have faith. Their view is correct by default because it's what they have been taught and if they are truly faithful then why would they question what the good book teaches!

 

[Jimi H.]

.. do your own research, think for yourself.

Believe me, I did.

The equations were already in place in the 70ies, scientists were already aware of the problem back then, long before the effects became apparent, as they are now. In the 90ies scientific awareness of the problem became acute. What has followed since then is all about politics, hence the IPCC committed an error in handling the poor science they refused during the 'email-scandal', because when issues are a political hot potatoe, you have to act accordingly. However, eventually it's good practice to refuse bad science.

But this is exactly the problem, people get the political battle, anyone gets the controversy of two groups yelling at each other, journalists understand this too, and interest groups certainly do. But the controversy veils the fact that climatologists basically all agree what's going on, and they understand that you cannot pump massive amounts of energy into a closed system, and not expect something to happen. It's basic physics, much more basic than the complicated equations seem to suggest.

It seems to me that you fell for the controversy and neglected to look at the science, perhaps you need to think for yourself?