... it's snowing in Louisiana, but raining in Whistler??? WTF??

Now be nice to Al, he called in to the Bob&Tom Radio Show (well it really wasn't Al) the other morning and said now if the rest of us just wait a few months do you know what is going to happen? It is going to melt? No $hit Al, that is called Spring/Summer.

No, no. here's how the snow will melt... hot air!

Scott

Climate change, boyos, means just that. It doesn't mean winter will suddenly disappear. Come on, you're smarter than you're making yourselves look.

In the 60s we were all going to die because of nuclear war.

In the 70s we were all going to die because of global cooling and over population.

In the 80s we were all going to die because of President Reagan‘s policies and over population.

In the 90s we were all going to die because of global warming and Y2K.

In the 00s we were all going to die because of global climate change.

Cant wait to see what the 10s have in store. . . .

Hell why wait I’ll just join VHEMT

My guess would be food shortages could become a problem in the not too distant future(now in many parts of the world). Either that, or a 10 year extension of "American Idol".

Do we have to do this again?

We're all going to die because of arguing over what's going to kill us?

Sorry, didn't mean to salt an open wound. I just found it rather ironic that down here in the "hot steamy South" we are (again tonight) under snow advisories and it was raining last night during the women's mogul run on a mountain some 2000 miles North of here.

Now with that said, a snow advisory down here means one might actually see snow fall, but it won't stick around for any length of time. For the rest of the country that is used to getting snow, feel free to have a good chuckle.

Scott

Because that will keep us from seeing the real threat before it hits us because it won’t be a politically expedient one.

You don't need to say you're sorry....there is snow in at least 49 states now. The unfortunate thing is Al Gore, and others like him have politicised this theory to the point, some scientists have been caught skewing the reaserch data to their desired conclusions. Most believe that there are natural cycles, the Earth goes through.....and that is what we are experiencing.


You do have to be careful though....any "libs" within earshot will resort to name calling, and/or will infer any who believe differently than them, are ignorant, rather than win a healthy fact based debate. It's so much easier for them to intimidate people, and shut down any discussion.

I think accusing 'libs' of name calling is fairly pointless... its a human trait, humans on both sides of any debate do it in equal measure.

The odd thing in all of this is how much *most* people on *both* sides of any political argument agree with each other. Its just the dramatic blow-hards that get all the air time, for obvious reasons.

I could not have said it any better Larry, facts are facts, and skewed results are as Luke said "pointless".

I find these threads to be extremely gratifying... comforting, even.

We want the truth....nothing more....nothing less.

“YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!”

Oh wait, wrong cause.

Actually rain and fog on Whistler is not all that uncommon. While it normally has huge amounts of snow all season making it one of the most consistently snowy ski resorts in Canada, it's also a very temperate mountain. It is know for a lot of milder weather for a big mountain but it usually has enough snow endure.

Vancouver , if you take yearly average, has the warmest average temperature of all of Canadian cities and is also known as one of the rainiest. Victoria BC, being the wettest if I remember right. (I'm on the opposite coast.)

Whistler/Blackcomb and surrounding mountains 'should' have been a very safe bet for having lots of snow for the Olympic games but rain and fog should be no surprise.

Nope. Right cause.
[soapbox] The truth is we don't really know. When I was a kid in grade school (yes, less than a century ago), we were all warned about the next ice age. Less than 30 years later it had switched to global warming due to elevated CO2 emissions from a variety of sources.
There was a recent study in the Netherlands (?) where researchers pumped CO2 rich air into a field to simulate a global warming type of environment. The result: bigger, faster growing plants. Who Knew? Wait, I did, for one. The next time you have a nice, warm, wood burning fire, hold onto that log for a second longer. Feel how heavy it is? All that carbon mass came from CO2 that the tree breathed in during its life. And while it was living it returned O2 for us to breath.
Want to end global warming? Plant some trees. [/soapbox]

Scott

I'd just like to throw some facts into the ring.

Why global warming can mean more snow

Better than throwing them out the window like some have done.

Well, if your window is open, you are bound to be cold.

Unless you were in Vancouver yesterday.

True, but I try to overcome my natural desire to want to make the joke to be universally accurate because then it loses it's humor.

Actually, I just like posting Snicker Dog.

LT said it before me... Snow on the ground in 49/50 states for the 1st time on record... Should we be pumping more carbon into the atmosphere to counterbalance the effect?

We (as the human race) are so small in comparison to this world. Even if a country like the USA, or Canada, China, or whomever decides to make cuts in carbon output, it will never make a real difference. Natural emissions are so much larger.

Have you ever flown over land and looked out the window? I've flown from Brisbane to Perth here in Australia and theres hardly a single square mile of the land that hasn't been dramatically changed by humans. All of it has been cut into squares and leveled of its native vegetation and filled with things that we either find tasty, useful or both. Australia has a much smaller population than the US (22M v. 308M), but doesn't have dramatically less land (7.6M km^2 v. 9.8M km^2).

Its not *just* about emissions from tailpipes and smoke stacks, thats just part of it.

Oh, how true. Methane is 10X as potent as CO2 on a lb/lb basis, yet few landfills are equipped for methane recovery and no cows that I'm aware of have [collection devices installed] (sorry, couldn't say the real thing) to recoup what the cows output naturally. How much US taxpayer money was spent on methane monitoring due to cow flatulence??

Scott

What you say is true, to a point. Natural emissions are much larger than human-caused emissions. But that's only part of the picture. Natural carbon emissions are also absorbed naturally (primarily by plants and the ocean). Nature has evolved to a point where the emission and absorption systems are in balance.

The carbon emissions human add to the mix are too much for nature to absorb. About 60% of our emissions end up in the atmosphere.

Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Livestock are more responsible for greenhouse gases than all forms of transportation in the world combined according to the UN and Food and Agricultural Organization.

Factual statement is factual. What are you getting at?

What I'm getting at is that if we're going to solve any problem you first need to identify it correctly then proceed from there with honest information to the public. The scientist providing the information should remain neutral, with NO agenda, other than to provide the true facts....no filling in the blanks, no removing facts which don't support a particular viewpoint.

The thing I like most about those who say we humans are upsetting “nature’s” balance is the presumption that we are not part of that “nature.” So if we do change the “nature” of the planet then I guess we’ll be the first species ever to do so.

And lets not forget that indigenous peoples lived in harmonious bliss with “nature” and each other until the indigenous-people-oppressing-no-regard-for-the-environment-capitalist-colonialist-militarist Western Europeans came along.

I often wonder what it must be like for Western left-wing intellectuals to live in a perpetual state of self/historical/species-loathing.

From the site your linked:

"Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature."

It's just like every other web site you can find out there pro or con global warming. This one is pro global warming, and even he admitted he is not a climate scientist.

You can easily fly over nonpopulated areas of Australia, the US, China, Canada, etc. and see nothing forever. Regardless, you can also fly over the oceans (which cover 70% plus of the surface area of the Earth) and find no human existance. You can then also delve into the Earth itself, and find the volume under the surface area which has exponentially greater mass. One major volcanic eruption causes more expulsion to the atmosphere than most of the carbon output of humans over the course of decades.

Having said all of that, I am not a climatologist. But there sure seems to be a lot of snow this year...

So tell me, why is it that when there is some bad weather event we have some AGW advocate saying things like

"You can expect more of these events due to global warming"

But when the northern hemisphere has it's coldest winter for quite some time, the line is:

"This is the weather, not the climate"

From the BBC interview with Phil Jones from CRU - the guy in the epicentre of the climategate scandal :
Question:
Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

His Answer : Yes, but only just....

In otherwords the warming since 1995, according to his records (which he has trouble managing appaently) say there has been warming since 1995, but it is so small that it is insignificant.

Link to interview (not an interpretation of the interview):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Man these global warming threads have really been some hot topics lately.

We *finally* got our little share of global warming, 72F for a high today, a most welcomed temperature ... bad news is that it's supposed to only last through today, cold weather is supposed to roll back in tomorrow. Dammit.

Talked to my mum today, 80 in SoCal, it's the first time I've missed CA since I left

That's basically what I'm saying...scientists that are part of the green movement aren't necessarily providing the facts but rather their "interpretation" of them. Once they started adding or leaving out conflicting data to support their "interpretation" or "theory", imo they lose credibility just like someone who lies in a court of law....once that happens, you then start questioning the rest of the "facts".

Adrian,

Once again, i agree completely. I am now at the point where I will not believe any science that isn't based on empirical evidence with released data. This modeling stuff is BS, IMHO.

I fear that many other people just won't believe science anymore, and something real will need to be addressed.

Yes, we should all believe the intellectual right, particularly from the States.
“Intellectual right”, is this not an oxymoron? Reminds me of Fox News, Fair and Balanced.
Look, over there, a shiny thing!

Don't get me wrong please. Megyn Kelly of Fox News is a fox, brain dead, but a fox.

LOL. I will just have to use that one. Very good.

Just at much as the “Intellectual left.”.

When ones interpretation of the world is heavily constrained by political believes it is IMO no different than seeing the world through religious beliefs. “Secular Humanism” and it’s associated beliefs is as much a religion as any of the traditional ones. One difference however, most of worlds major religions in existence today have survived the test of time something yet to be achieved by the secular humanists.

The problem for me with “Intellectuals” of any ilk is that they claim to better know how I should live my life than I do, of course it‘s always for the common good, children, small furry animals . . . . For any given individual it may be only about wanting to feel they are “doing the right thing,” but for the collective movements its about the power to make heretics like me conform to their beliefs.

For the record I don’t make any effort to watch/listen to the news. NPR (and it’s affiliates, BBC, local community radio) driving to work is about all I get. If someone turns on any news at work I leave the room because it‘s all mindless crap on the boob tube and commercial radio.

If the world comes to an end I will be dead and not care. If we go to war someone will call me or tell me when I show up at work. Cant’ see much else I’d need to know about that won‘t be the “talk of the town“ should I have a laps and be interested. Been on the “no news wagon” for 3 years now and I’ve got more time to enjoy other things and fell much healthier (less anger about things over which I have no control). Best thing about it is how clearly one can think when not being bombarded by constant propaganda.

You introduced a “religious” context, I’ll extend it.

I never said I was believed in “Secular Humanism”; although I unreservedly agree with a secular government.
In the U.S, a president would never be elected if they don’t play the religious card. Whereas in most other countries, including Canada, you play that card and you’ll never be elected. But don’t fret, the U.S is in good company: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan…etc. You understand.

“If we go to war” What? The U.S is at war!

Peace brother!!

Yes, but he got his data from peer-reviewed articles written by scientists. You do understand the process of peer-review, I presume?

I whole-heartedly agree. Everyone should have access to the data so we can see just how many outlying points were left off to make the curves prettier.

Is the "data" correct is the whole point.

It would take a global conspiracy of scientists for falsified data -- and the conclusions drawn from it -- to survive for very long. Scientists are (only) human, and suffer from all the same faults you can see in any other profession. There are significantly more honest scientists than dishonest ones, though, and as a group they have their sights set on discovering, revealing, and explaining the mechanisms that make the universe tick.

Truth is the goal, and the scientific method is the best tool humans have ever invented for getting at truth.

+1 to Peter's defense of the scientific method. Very well said.

I wish everyone who participated in the media free-for-all that is the global warming/climate change discussion could appreciate and understand the scientific method and the work that scientists do. I get tired of talking heads on TV pretending that they know science, when I strongly suspect they were the ones in the back of the class goofing off, while people like Argon and me were up front paying attention and working hard.

Sometimes I'm tempted to take Grunt's way out and just tune out of the debate. I might also throw in there a retreat from following politics, as well. I might be able to preserve what little sanity I have left.

Yes, we are part of nature, so any change we do should be considered a ‘natural’ change. I think this whole save the Earth movement is misleading, Earth is going to be just fine, however us… To paraphrase Carlin, the Earth has gone through much worse things than a little plastic… or CO2 for that matter.




I don’t know about indigenous people living in harmonious bliss w/ nature, The Eastern Island Rapanui people disappeared because of reckless deforestation, at least that’s one theory. And if I remember correctly the Mayan or Aztec may had disappeared for similar reasons. Somehow humans have this thing that makes it difficult to do change when its survival is in jeopardy, human nature I guess :-)

I’m interested in the climate change debate but only when the debate is coming from scientists respected amongst their peers. Yes, scientists have biases, there’re human after all, but the scientific method tries to get rid of that as much as possible. It’s the best we can do.

Since you seem to take things so personally when your sniping at others is challenged (the oxymoron comment) I doubt we can have a meaningful exchange, but I’ll try.

First, I compared the secular humanist movement to religion, never said you believed, but did seem to strike a nerve.

Whether someone is trying to impose their secular ideology or religions ideology on someone it looks pretty much the same. Only difference I see is that the latter claims to be morally superior while the former claims to be both morally and cognitively superior, with my experience being that both are neither. IMO the only difference today between secular ideology and religion is semantic.

I’m only guessing but I imagine that most elected officials in Canada or other Western countries wouldn’t get elected if they didn’t tow the appropriate secular line with their constituents. IMO this differs in no substantial way from the U.S. and only makes a difference to those who choose to believe that there is a fundamental difference between secular and religious based ideologies.

Comparing the U.S. to Iran, Iraq. . . is as non-sequitur as comparing Canada to the secular governments of the Soviet Union, Communist China, Deutsches Reich. . . . It’s a tired out left wing tactic to inflame the passions of both sides. Bored now!

“If we go to war you’ll find out about it!” was something we said to new squad member when I was in the Marine Corps if they started griping about the lack of info about the “real” world when we spent weeks/months in the field training. It meant if something really important happened you’ll hear about it.

How copy? Over!

Cheers,
Out!

Uhmm.. Pmbuko,

There are a couple of problems with the scientific method - for a start it assumes the participants are Gentlemen who will act accordingly.

Don't get me wrong here, there is some very good science out there, however the scientific method can be undermined and circumvented in exactly the ways demonstrated at the University of East Anglia.

These days it seems to be more of a mechanism to prevent plagiarism than anything else.

And please don't get me started on the IPCCs idea of peer review either.

I think it's fair to say that just about everything that constitutes Peer reviewed literature from the area of climate science over the past 10-15 years must be re-reviewed and assessed.

There are simply too many mistakes with too much evidence of political corruption of the scientific method to do otherwise.

Actually from their POV we have. They don’t view war as narrowly as we in the West who are often blinded by filtering what we experience through deconstructionist Western thinking. For them war is always happening only difference is how it’s being manifested as any given time.

And believe me the Chinese haven’t forgotten how the Western Europeans, U.S. and Japanese have treated them.

Can you cite examples? I'm honestly interested in how you came to your current stance on the subject.

You're right, the temptation is there to bend one's ethics for money or power, just as the temptation is there in any other profession. However, I'd still throw in with your everyday scientist before just about any other profession as far as ethics are concerned. Who else would I trust more? Not lawyers, politicians, salesmen, financiers, oil men, other businessmen, the clergy ... maybe farmers. They're good people, by and large. And I.T. people are pretty cool.

Hi PMBuko,

I don't want to spout on about all the *gates, as I am guessing peoples eyes will roll.

IMO - for someone with the time and the interest, a torrent search on University of east anglia or CRU should get you the emails and the model code for a deeper dive.

Another, easier route would be the following timeline:

Timeline

[/quote]
However, I'd still throw in with your everyday scientist before just about any other profession as far as ethics are concerned. Who else would I trust more? Not lawyers, politicians, salesmen, financiers, oil men, other businessmen, the clergy ... maybe farmers. They're good people, by and large. And I.T. people are pretty cool.
[/quote]

I am tempted to agree with you on a personal level, however, it is my view that the politicians, financiers, oil men etc have managed to have an overt influence on the scientists.

I don't buy in necessarily with the "they did it for the money" argument, however there is a very large left wing Bias in Academic institutions which simply isn't counterbalanced.

People can do some pretty awful things if they believe by doing those things they will save the planet.

Well, it is just the Earth we're talking about. On a cosmic scale, it's pretty insignificant.

This quote from Carl Sagan pretty much sums it up:



Here's the image to which he's referring:

I use to be very involved in politics. Started by helping my parents campaign for Eugene McCarthy though I was very young.

I’ve read Confucius, Socrates (pronounced so-crates ), Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Pliny the Younger, Saint Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, Ibn Khaldun, Machiavelli, Martin Luther, Calvin, Bacon, Hobbes, Spinoza, Lock, Rousseau, Kant, Smith, Burke, Paine, Jefferson, Malthus, Hegel, Ricardo, Fourier, Comte, Feuerbach, Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill, Kierkagaard, Thoreau, Marx, Engels, Nietzsche, Veblen, Weber, Strauss, Hayek, Fromm, Popper, Adorno, Sartre, Rand, Bobbio, Rawls, Foucalult, Habermas, Friedman, Meyer, Leibniz, Mises, Gahndhi, Chomsky, Mao, Hitler, Lenin and don’t ever leave out the Christian Bible as it’s a wealth of insight into the human character. And that’s just the political philosophers I could cull off Wiki lets not get into the historians, and other social scientists and politicians.

What did I learn from all of this. Pretty simple, those with power get what they want and those without power don’t. Spin, moralize, justify any way you want if it makes you feel better because in the end might makes right because those with power decide what’s right and wrong. If people want to save themselves some reading some very smart men distilled most of this all down into one document:



Up until the 1993 election I never missed voting (well I don’t count my write-in vote for Mickey Mouse that year). And in the end after all the learning, campaigning, voting what difference have I made in the world:

Used tear gas and a shotgun to drive off 50 or so demonstrators out of 2000, who broke off and tried to scale the wall of the embassy in Accra. Another Marine and I pulled two kids out of burning building in Freetown (probably died later in the civil war). Saved another Marine from drowning. Helped put out numerous fires as a volunteer fire fighter. Volunteer help a various JROTC and Veterans functions. . . .

OTOH all my political efforts have never made the difference in any election because reason only wins debates while emotion wins elections and I won‘t use emotion to scare people onto voting.

So yup I’ve checked out of politics too.

Yes, I am aware of how small the earth is in the larger scheme of things.

So your point is what? That I don't care for the environment or that I want to leave the earth in worse shape for my kids than I inherited it?

Well Said. Worth Quoting.

That wasn't my intended angle at all, although I can see how you made the leap there.

You're smarter than the Marine stereotype.

I found it a bit weird thinking you might have. I am glad to be corrected.

Honestly though, don't get me wrong here. I do care about the environment, I just wish people like Mr Gore and his followers would stop whining about things and actually get pragmatic.

IMHO, if people are convinced C02 is causing imminent climate catastrophe, I don't understand why they don't just go out and plant some trees instead of trying to introduce some weird sort of socialist mechanisms instead.

Here is an outstanding paper written by a couple of PLA Colonels:

Unrestricted Warfare

And here is a more accessible Wiki summary:

Unrestricted Warfare

My understanding of the differences between the more ridged and deconstructionist way of Western thinking vs the more flexible and holistic way of eastern thinking started when I learned to play go and chess as a kid. But it wasn’t until I joined the Marine Corps that my mind was really opened to the warfare ramifications.

The Corps I joined was run by Vietnam Vets who learned from experience what it’s like to fight a non Westernized Asian enemy. Everyone in my Battalion was required to study counter insurgency warfare. For NCOs and officers required readings included “The Art of War” and Mao’s writings. The Marine Corps itself has up until recently done most of it’s heavy fighting in the far east and like any successful expeditionary force adopts what works from it’s enemies. So in many ways the Marine Corps has become more “Eastern” than “Western” in it’s fighting much to the chagrin of Western reporters in Iraq. Hell when I was in we didn’t even use the term Gung Ho! We always said “Gong He” (pronounced more like gun-gee but like one word) which is the Mandarin way of saying it. I never once heard someone say “Gung Ho.”

Basically what I learned was that there are no rules. You do what it takes to win anything less is stupid while anything more is wasteful. You attack only where the enemy is weak and run when he is strong. You attack by any and all means combat, political, educational, economic, moral. Even when not engaged in open hostilities you pursue the conflict through any other means available always trying to outmaneuver your enemy and win the battle/war in the best way possible w/o having to fight.

If you are interested in eastern military philosophy then you must start by reading “The Art of War.”

On a more general side the basis in our difference in thinking about warfare stems from our respective cultural beliefs. Several things happened in the West that happened nowhere else in the world on the same scale at the time.

Christianity (and to some extent it’s precursors) introduced a finite linnear concept of time (the universe has a beginning, middle and end) whereas most of the rest of the world viewed time as cyclical.

Through both Christian and ancient Greek philosophies the idea of dichotomies (the dialectic) evolved into Western culture and permeates “intellectual” thinking of all types.

Modern Science developed a codified way to deconstruct the world (or arguments) into parts. Makes for faster progress as smaller problems are usually easier to solve but often with a narrow focus and understanding. Loosing sight of the forest for the trees so to speak.

IMO these cultural precepts lay the foundation for Western thinking and from them develop higher order differences we see between Western European and other ways of thinking. The apparent “success” (only time will tell) of the “Western Way” fuels Westerners sense of superiority and the Westernization of the rest of the world.

Add to that the Germanic concept of the individual prevalent in Anglo (Germanic) peoples and you further differentiate the English speaking peoples from the rest of the world even many continental Europeans.


Bored Yet?
Dean

P.S. My two favorite social theorist are Mark Twain and George Carlin.

Not Bored at all,

Very interesting. A Colleague of mine once said something that has allways stuck in my head though - "we always seem to prepare for the war that has just been".

Your comments show that you guys at least have prepared well for what seems to me to be a predominantly psychological war. By this I mean that if terrorism failed to terrorise, then it must be a failure.

It looks like at least some scientists have got the message about publishing their models and data with their papers - just like the good old days

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/15/hatton_on_hurricanes/

Oh, and BTW he cut his teeth in I.T. Fully supporting an earlier claim.

Your friend's statement is very true that militaries always prepare to fight the last war. In that respect it left the Marine Corps as you point out in a much better position to deal with the present situation. Also, the Marine Corps Combat Development Command and it's predecessors. Have always tried to focus on anticipating the next war. They developed an amphibious warfare doctrine in anticipation of a war with Japan despite the naysayers claiming opposed amphibious landings were impossible. The Corps played a pivotal role in the bringing close air support into U.S. doctrine from a British concept because it’s hard for artillery to keep up with infantry in the jungles. The Attack helicopter evolved for the same reason that it’s hard for tanks and anti-tank guns to maneuver in the jungles. The first modern recon drones in the U.S. were bought by the Marine Corps from the Israelis when the Commandant was shown a live image of himself looking at himself looking at the image.

I can’t speak to today’s Corps. I got out because as the Vietnam Vets left the bureaucrats began taking over as happens with all peacetime militaries. However, the culture of the Naval service has historically been more “free thinking.” If you think about it back in the age of sail you couldn't just radio HQ for instructions on how to handle a problem. Naval officers often conducted U.S. foreign policy. Contrast this with the Army which almost never fought in number w/o being able to contact a higher HQ within days and the Air Force which has never existed even in a previous form w/o the ability to pick up a phone and call higher HQ. I’ve served in the Navy Reserve, Active Marine Corps, Army Guard and now the Air Guard and say that my experience bears out the bureaucratizing effects of the various services heritages.

And your comment about “psychological war” is correct. Many people mistakenly equate the maneuver warfare doctrine with moving tanks to engage the. However, that misses the whole point of the doctrine which is to win w/o fighting by putting your enemy in an untenable position via “maneuver“ be it physical or psychological. The latter being preferable. I read an excellent book (hope I still have it) by an Army Captain who chastised the Army’s application of the doctrine as non-existent in the First Gulf War.

P. S. A little piece of trivia most people don’t know. The cap badge of the Royal Marines shows the Eastern hemisphere while the Marine Corps badge displays the Western Hemisphere. Anglo-American Hegemony anyone?

Forgot the link that was suppose to follow that in my post above.

United States Bill of Rights

Grunt,

Interesting stuff. I am assuming you have seen the film or read the book "The Pentagon Wars"?

I use it in my training all the time with respect to Product Development.

Funny you should ask. I hadn’t seen it in years so I got it from Netflix last week. It’s so true it’s scary.

Yep. Guaranteed to make Project Managers cry, engineers laugh and old timers shrug.

We put a man on the moon and brought them back again with 32KB of RAM.

And right now we can’t even do it.

yeah, I heard about that. Budget cuts. Sucks.

Post deleted by me....

Thought twice about using your hijack powers, did you?

I guess it's like Spiderman said, "With great power comes great responsibility."

Then I will do it. But I refuse to be a Robin to his Batman. I prefer to be more of an antagonistic Venom to his Spiderman.

Dean you mentioned playing Go. I just tried it for the first time and I'm intrigued. Who could ever have imagined so much strategy could be involved with just a grid and stones. Right now I have nothing but but a poorly written rules brochure and some internet findings. Are you aware of any good books on strategy to take a pre-beginner to a higher level?

You may now return to your regularly scheduled apocalyptic event.

Dean, I'm very involved in sociopolitical and environmental et al. issues. Have you seen any of the following documentaries?-

Life at the end of Empire
Winter soldier
The Illuminati
Or anything by Richard Dawkins?

Those come to mind, but there are many more I could cite.

I know this was directed at Dean. I’ve read several of Richard Dawkins books. The Greatest Show on Earth is a great reading. I’m personally undecided on his ‘militant’ approach of his cause; I understand why he does it but not sure if it’s the best approach.

Sorry, not only directed at Dean, but I didn't phrase it that way. I have God Delusion Debate - Richard Dawkins & John Lennox, The Genius of Charles Darwin, The Root of All Evil, and Enemies of Reason. The debate is very interesting, and I very much enjoyed the movies mentioned.

I know what you mean by his "militant" approach, but I think it's required considering the people he's confronting in the documentaries are generally close minded. But, I guess others on the opposite side of the spectrum would say the same for him.

Yes, I totally agree with you… Dawkins interview with Wendy Wright comes to mind, it is awfully frustrating arguing with some of the extreme religious fundamentalist, I almost started pulling my hair out watching that interview.
But my point is, if RD wants to spread the message of reason and logic, alienating the people the message has to go to, is not a good strategy, IMHO.

High Cam, no I haven’t seen any of those more recent documentaries because I haven’t been watching much TV for years. Though the “Life at the end of Empire” looks interesting enough to me I might see if Netflix has it or is someone is streaming it.

Never saw “Winter Soldier” either. I’m not very interested in reading about “War Crimes” I feel the biggest crime in war (armed combat) is the war itself. Especially when it’s more a war of opportunity then necessity. I see the second biggest crime as entering a war without the fortitude to do whatever it takes to gain the desired outcome. Rules about who can/can’t be killed when were and how are just absurd. That doesn’t mean you don’t self regulate to achieve a specific limited outcome however.

I have read “The Selfish Gene” and “The Extended Phenotype,” interesting stuff. I’ve also read a lot about the concept of the “Meme,“ transmission of knowledge, and what exactly are “facts” when taking graduate courses about the sociology of science and technology. I love when people talk about scientific “facts” when I’ve read a stack of papers in which various scientists can’t come to any agreement on what a “fact” actually is.

Cheers,
Dean

I believe that the majority if not all of the problems in the world today have to do with the disconnection. If people believe that their food comes from the supermarket, and their water from the tap, then they will defend to the death that system or those mediums because your life depends on it. But if people believe that their water comes from a stream, and their food from a land based product or say hydroponics, then people would do the same, and the world would be much better off.

I remember somebody posting about cattle being one of, if not the largest contributing factor to global warming because of the methane gas they produce, which is true, but this doesn't take the onus off human beings. We are the ones that started the agricultural revolution, and I would venture to bet that there wouldn't have ever been anywhere close to as many cattle in North America if we didn't have anything to do with cattlespace in the first place. Industrialized farming, or "totalitarian agriculture" is the causation, and we are responsible.

As for science, the only problem that I have with it is that before it existed, humans understood the universe, how to relate to the universe. Now science comes in and tells us how to run the universe, which sometimes throws things off base.

Also, there are great clips on YouTube from "Winter Soldier" conferences/testimony via Iraq and Afghanistan veterans against the war. The "Winter Soldier" movie I was referring to are accounts and testimony from the Vietnam War. The title is a famous line from the great man Thomas Paine, but without googling it, I can't remember exactly how it goes. I really urge those who might have a slight interest in this media, to check out the new "Winter Soldier" testimony available on YouTube; very moving and gripping stuff.

I agree with you about the disconnection from our environment, communities, jobs, families. Humans did not IMO evolve to live in large societies but rather small groups. The speed with which we have collectivized has far outpaced our ability to biologically adapt so we are all essentially a bunch of hunter gathers cooped up in a cadge of modern society with many of the issues we face stemming from our disconnection with our basic “nature.”

Science does disconnect us from our world because of it’s inherently deconstructionist nature. Something we spent a lot of time studying in sociology of science seminars was how science is just one of many ways of viewing the world. One which has yet to clearly show us what to do with all the information it provides. Despite this science has become the new religion for many people in part because of the rift that developed with the Catholic Church. Since this rift was really about power (there clergy’s fear of loosing it) science became the defacto opposition party. So now people are seeking and gaining power under the guise of science simply by using it as new form of organized religion sans a named deity.

Cam, the cattle/methane relationship is meant to keep things in perspective as there are thousands in the 'movement' who would shut down entire industries believing that it will cure global warming, if in fact it is real. For eg, the oilsands out west produce approx 4% of Canada's greenhouse gases where there are reports that agriculture creates in the neighbourhood of 20% of our greenhouse gases. It would be a shame to put millions of peoples livelihoods at stake in various industries thinking we'll save the planet when in fact, we've not addressed or correctly identified the problem which could likely be a natural phenomena, and that does not mean that I don't think we need to be prudent in the way we treat the environment.

I read a couple book recently that are very relevant to where this discussion is heading.The first is is fairly old but quite concise and a quick read. Author is E.F. Schumaker and the book is called A Guide for the Perplexed. It discusses science and religion and puts forward the strong thesis that human existence is more than Science alone can explain and enlighten.

The second book is by Joseph Campbell -- of comparative mythology fame. It's called Pathways to Bliss. It discusses the mature of modern life as being "pathless" and how it's important to find a kind of personal mythology to inform your life.

Neither of these would fall into the self-help category, by the way.

Does this mean us married guys are finally allowed to have girlfriends?

Yeah, and I saw Joyce on eHarmony the other day, no, wait, I mean a patient of mine was accidentally on eHarmony, and he may or may not have ... oh, crap.

I see your point but I get a bit uneasy when someone start equating science and religion. There’s no faith in science.

I have a coworker that married someone he met on eHarmony. They have been married for more than 4 years now. I guess those commercials are really true. :-)

Sorry, no. But it does allow us single guys to share your wife.

Wait for it ...

...

Take my wife... PLEASE!

Only if shipped "postage paid", with 30 day trial.

...don't forget the 5 yr warranty.

[quote=I’ve read Confucius, Socrates (pronounced so-crates ), Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Pliny the Younger, Saint Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, Ibn Khaldun, Machiavelli, Martin Luther, Calvin, Bacon, Hobbes, Spinoza, Lock, Rousseau, Kant, Smith, Burke, Paine, Jefferson, Malthus, Hegel, Ricardo, Fourier, Comte, Feuerbach, Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill, Kierkagaard, Thoreau, Marx, Engels, Nietzsche, Veblen, Weber, Strauss, Hayek, Fromm, Popper, Adorno, Sartre, Rand, Bobbio, Rawls, Foucalult, Habermas, Friedman, Meyer, Leibniz, Mises, Gahndhi, Chomsky, Mao, Hitler, Lenin and don’t ever leave out the Christian Bible as it’s a wealth of insight into the human character. And that’s just the political philosophers I could cull off Wiki lets not get into the historians, and other social scientists and politicians. [/quote]

What no Rudolf Stiener?

No Peanuts?

Ok What no Gary Larson?

That's just as bad.

"Bored now(!)" ?

Your first rant did that!

And please trust that you make me laugh, not upset.

I understand your unease many if not most people in the West are educated from day one that science is just right. Text books are often written w/o equivocation which is why most good professors won't use them for higher level courses preferring to use a cross-section of articles and other non "textbook" sources.

In a perfect world science is nothing more than a tool, a set of guidelines on how to conduct trial and error in an organized way. However, in response to the schism between “science” and the “church” (many early scientists were clergy and later were often still “religious”) science got branded as and co-opted by anti-religious ideologues (both left and right wing) seeking to wrestle power from the “church.”

The more fundamental issue is that all human constructs including science are based on some degree of faith. Even in its purest forms mathematics and symbolic logic need something accepted as a "given" to get the ball rolling. Not to mention the symbol and numbering systems chosen are even culturally based social constructs. As one moves away from reasoning in these most strict forms even more social biases creep in. So by the time one moves science from the realms of mathematics > symbolic logic > chemistry % physics > multi-disciplinary fields such as climatology there are so many socially induced biases that any work in the field is filled with assumptions based on the faith (preconceived beliefs or ideology) of the researchers and even tainted by something as basic as the words used to make the argument.

While one can argue that science by design creates repeatable results which can have powerful predictive powers, this in not an absolute, still being subject to all sorts of human biases especially when applied to policy making. People blame religion for all sorts of evils while those same people give science a free pass for atrocities committed in its name. Both sides of this issue just make excuses for the excesses committed in pursuit of their beliefs claiming they are not representative while simultaneously claiming the other sides excesses are representative.

True believers are IMO the same regardless of how they derive their beliefs. It's been that way for thousands of years and nothing has happened recently to indicate that has changed. IMO true believers from opposing left and right wing ideologies are much more fundamentally alike than they are different. The differences are superficial.

Cheers,
Dean

Why have marriage?

Because my wife has a great attorney.

Kidding....

Scott

Holy Cr@p! I go to work for a day and come back to 12 pages of stirred up hornets nest to read thru. Awesome!

Scott

Now I see how you can afford your toys.

Yes. I've been well blessed to have a high paying job that hopefully I'll be able to keep for many years to come.

Scott

I love you, Dean!

The really good professors in my experience use their own textbooks that they have published no matter what year, along with the use of custom courseware. You are right that professors seem to stray away from textbooks at higher level courses but that is because undergrad is more theory based and years 4 or 5 + is more applied and research (no textbooks for that) oriented. Textbooks are usually replaced with custom course material put together by the prof.

oh I misread your post, I thought you said your wife was an attorney and purchased all your toys. I want the vette, lol

You’re point about the nature of text books and custom course material sounds basically the same as what I was trying to make. That textbooks are written in a more constrained form since the theories they present (sometimes multiple theories if none is dominant) are generally more accepted, where as most higher level courses I took were as you say “more applied and research” but I would also add often more theoretically eclectic. In the most advance courses I took most of the study was outside of and often inconsistent with the dominant paradigms.

I always understood and accepted professors sourcing their own material especially when referencing papers they’ve written since they’re teaching theses courses in conjunction with their own research. However, that didn’t stop it from bothering me when a professor required a book he wrote for the course only to use say 2 small sections out of it that could easily have been copied out (royalties paid) and put in the course reader. But I guess professors need to make a living and have egos too.

That's what my wife refers to as "publish or perish". We have both had professors that somehow got their work accepted as the course text only to find out most of the time it was pure cr@p. If one made the fatal mistake of pointing out errors, even typos, a 15 minute lecture would begin pointing out the various differences between the professor and the (obviously stupid) student.

Scott

Egos are a real big problem at the college and university level.

I had a real bad case of a lecturer, not a professor, for entry level classical social theory lecture (I couldn’t opt out of for a higher level course since it was the foundation for everything else) foisting her agenda on the class. Were we supposed to be studying the likes of Marx, Durkheim and Weber but there were no Dead White European Males to be seen. Instead a collection of feminist and third world social theorists. Interesting stuff but not what the course was supposed to be about.

I went to the Dean of the department and showed her the syllabus from that lecture and the ones on file for the previous years and how they didn’t compare at all. I then showed her the course descriptions and syllabi for the courses for which this was a prerequisite and asked her how this lecture was going to prepare me for those. She pulled out a syllabus from a couple years prior when she had to teach that lecture and told me I didn’t have to attend because she would be handling “my” course. The next semester the lecturer was gone.

I keep thinking of getting involved in the discussion and then not committing because I'll just come across as a dumbass next to Dean and others.

That's some good Dean-on-Dean action.

Come on, you knew someone was going to say it.

There, that's my contribution to the discussion.

We're comic relief.

You are?

:runs away laughing:

I apologize for lacking the time to read everything like I used to be able to do, but in case it hasn't been said already:

The humor we find in global warming skeptics using the snow to ridicule alarmists lies in the knowledge of how mass media has used isolated weather events to stoke warming hysteria in the past.

I don't care who you are that right there is funny.

My goodness this thing has been active.

I'll throw in my $.02

1. Yes Dean, the idea that man is not part of nature is a bit of an artificial construct used to shift the framing of the 'problem'. However, consider that a man, whether his head has been bashed in by a rock (nature) or splattered by a bullet (man made) matters little since it makes him equally dead.

2. Population biology. J-curve. Many organisms naturally go through boom and bust cycles. The bust, though natural, ain't pretty. Take a look at the human population growth curve over the last 200k years and tell me it doesn't look like a J-curve.

3. The truth. In reality is what you believe. Convince enough people to see it your way and you have a universal truth. Well, until the next universal truth comes along anyway.

4. Why do those dammed left wing lunatics use every weather event as proof that their theories are right? The same reason that those right wing fundamentalists use every weather event as proof that AWG is a left wing conspiracy. Its a war. In war you shoot first and ask questions lat... well, you don't ask questions.

5. Short term species, long term problem. As a species that has lived hand to mouth for the last 200K years (if you believe evolution is a truth) it is a real challenge for us to grasp a problem for which cause and effect are more than two weeks apart. By the time we find the 'smoking gun' in this debate, the bullet will have splattered our collective brains all about. Man made or natural, does it matter?

Right, carry on...

While we are on the topic of pedagogues, my girlfriend mentioned last week that she had a class on racism (she's in school for an RPN). She told me that her professor said that this city is considered a "white city". I was completely awestruck at that statement. Here is someone "teaching" students on racism and then they use a defamatory (in my opinion) statement like that. How about it's not an ethnically diverse city.

That old adage comes to mind- "the more we're taught, the less we learn".

I didn't know Al Gore was a dirty old man!

I don’t agree at all. Are there people that take science as an absolute truth or just plainly right? Really? I may be naïve in thinking this but most everyone knows that for the most part, science is just the best way discovered yet for weeding out the truth from human bias. Of course science is not immutable or absolute. The scientific method could be refined or completely reformed in the future. But right now: Is there a better way of systematically explain our reality? Maybe, I do know this though; all religions so far throughout history have failed miserably at this.

Absolutely, there are very many at the University level who view “science” in the way a traditional person views religion. Some people are so anti-religious that it drives their beliefs in science to the point of becoming religious in there absoluteness. Others are so pro-technological progress that science takes on an absolutist context for them. Most Westerners have simply been educated all their lives to believe science is best and has defeated and shamed all the “unsuccessful/outdated” (western) religions for a couple of reasons.

In the broadest sense these beliefs are an outgrowth of the schism between religion and academia. With sciences “triumph” over religion modern scientific academics have supplanted the previous “religious” academics as the purveyors “truth.“ The problem, however, is that while science is great in figuring out the workings of things, at least to certain small scale, it has no moral foundation to guide people on how to use this information. So almost from it’s modern inception science has been struggling to find “it’s way” so to speak in not just providing information but in telling people how “best” to use it.

This is where pure science quickly devolves into ideology which in the opinion of many is just another form of religious belief. The most pervasive of these ideologies in modern academics are the embodied in modern socialism. Secular Humanism, due largely to the stigma surrounding the history of socialism has gained some traction in becoming the ideological (religious) face of modern science.

However, all is not harmonious on the political left. There is also counter movement of lefties who view traditional science as so terribly biased by the culture of DWEM (Dead White European Males) to be counterproductive. Many alternatives to traditional science have been offered by feminists and various “third world” authors. But for now most of this is on the fringe.

As I mentioned above most Westerners view science as the best way of knowing our world which on the surface when looking at the modern technological boom would seem obvious. However, science didn’t bring us this technology. Both regulated markets and command directed economies (the U.S. space program was not based on free markets or capitalism) did. (Note: Most people confuse market based and command directed economies with capitalism and socialism respectively). Science itself can’t seem to prove which or what combination of these or other economic theories is best.

Another problem for modern science is it’s deconstructionist nature. In order to progress quickly and more “accurately” (at least at the small scale) science breaks things into parts. While this may hasten “progress” it often overlooks the consequences of such progress on the large scale. This whole discussion began because of man-made-global-warming and it’s potential dire consequences. Which science has brought upon us by providing limited knowledge without full understanding resulting in our rapid “progress” which may in also hasten our demise. My engineering friends are quite confident the science will work it all out as has apparently been the case for the last 150 and especially 50 years. However, narrowly focused scientifically based “solutions” invariably have knock-on effects which in turn may end up being worse than the problem being solved.

This is one of my biggest gripes about the we-must-reduce-carbon-emissions-to-stop-global warming/climate change crowed is that this “solution” itself is based once again on deconstructionist narrowly focused “scientific” study. Data suggests Methane could easily be a greater problem. Never mind if the sun has a bad day and we’re all toast. So the issue for me isn’t whether the globe is warming it’s whether we are applying our limited resources to mitigate it in the most productive way and even more importantly is this something we really want to do sense we have know way of knowing what the long term consequences of cooling the globe might be. In the headlong rush toward progress we once again are loosing sight of the forest for the trees.

Interestingly enough I remember once reading a story about humans gaining to much knowledge to fast because of someone eating an apple. Funny, how well over 2000 years ago some religious types seemed to have figured out what modern academics have forgotten. More generally if you strip way the trappings of the successful (by social evolutionary standards) world religions you get some pretty good messages about how people who want live together harmoniously should behave toward each other. However, since it’s sacrilege for a Western academic to adopt Judeo/Christian beliefs you see many turning to Eastern beliefs to find meaning since the meaning science provides usually doesn’t suffice.

So is “science” the best way of learning about our world? Clearly that depends on what one considers “best.” I spent a semester with a professor and about 10 other people discussing this exact topic. The engineers and business types where absolutely sure it was. The feminist felt science was so biased it should be reworked. The Hippy, professor and I all felt any answer was arbitrary and temporal (depending on how one defined a “best” outcome and over what timeframe). One thing I can say is that up to now no religion that I’m aware of has brough us the potential to destroy all of humanity. Will science turn out to be "best?"

Cheers,
Dean

P.S. Thanks for keeping the discussion civil.

Science is not a religion. It's a process.

Belief in your own interpretation of the results of scientific experiment may be religious, as they may have to be if you don't or can't understand the experiments your believing in.

Please do not confuse religion with morality. More religion certainly does not equal more morality. Looking at how most people judge the behaviour of people who literally interpret their religion it would seem obvious to me that the exact opposite is true.

The good and the bad morality that is documented by religion comes from the mouths of humans. The good messages in religion are unoriginal and largely common sense. The bad moral messages in religion are gleefully glossed over... how do we decide which morals we should take from religion?

We use our inherent morality. If we have such good inherent morality why would we need to take any queues from religion?

To take the writings of a few humans around 1500 years ago and take them to be our moral compass in modern society is foolish, at best.

It's fairly ironic that all these global warming deniers were happy enough to consume the results of scientific process by buying cars and packaged food... yet when science starts telling them that they should probably rethink their habits they are wanting to burn science at the stake. How does that morality (or logic) work?

Science really came about, exploding in the 16th and 17th century out of a theistic background. Many philosophers of science have studied this, but I forget what it's called (maybe Grunt can help me out). So in a sense, yes, science is a religion (Edit-or this is at least one strong current theory). Saying this, I favor science.

Being an atheist and anti-theist, I wholeheartedly agree with everything else you said, Luke. I'm also an anarchist (following the teachings of Bakunin), and would extend morality to controlling all of life, therefore no laws etc. There isn't one law that stops me from doing something because I may face jurisprudence or end up in jail. But rather my morality guides me through life, choosing not to do something because I've been taught, formulated on my own, or experience that it or something is morally corrupt.

It's called Whitehead's thesis.

Except the small things after science, I agree. Science and religion are about different things. I see no incompatibility between the two if you have a reasonably open mind.


Its not about how science is devolving, its about the politicization of science: people using science as a lever for an end goal without caring much about the actual science. Political ideology, left or right is not particularly helpful in the current debate on climate change.


Most people view the left and right as a linear scale. I see it more like a circle with communism on the extreme left and fascism on the extreme right ending up being much the same thing in a different guise. In both cases the world of politics and economic endeavor are completely controlled by one group. They hate each other so much because they are exactly the same and thus occupy the exact same niche. They are both equally unsustainable.

The best is when there is some sort of balance of power between the 'left' social and the 'right' economic/business. The Scandinavian countries seem to do this balancing trick the best and have both strong social programs and strong economies.


That is not a failure of science, but a failure of the application of science. There are also branches of every scientific area that examine large scale systems.

Sometimes, very simple science can quite elegantly explain seemingly complex things. Robotics have done some really cool things in understanding some basic bug behavior by putting together robots with as little as 6 simple pieces of decision making logic.

We as a species have a bias toward the simple and immediate that leads to a failure in the application of things discovoured by 'science'.


Again, this is the politicization of science, this time by the left.

The political left has seized upon CO2 as its big stick and has chosen it as its primary weapon in the war-on-climate. The world of science has known about the risks/issues of methane as a greenhouse gas for quite a while.

The short term suppression of 'contradictory' evidence in the scientific community is a short term issue that deserves to be brought to light and corrected. The right wing claim that it is 'smoking gun' proof that all climate science is false is yet another politicization of science. The right's next big stick in the war.


It is a tool. No more, no less. It needs to be applied properly and judiciously to help us better understand our place in this world and how to best manage it. Pure science is the best tool for figuring out the how of things. Applied science is an art that requires pulling together multiple disciplines to achieve a goal or objective.

Pain avoidance? Seems to be a very basic and strong motivator in all living beings.

OK, I got a problem with this. If man is a part of nature, not the image of a divinity, merely another species in the animal kingdom... what kind of arrogance would imbue him with an inherent morality non-existant in the rest of nature. Nature is amoral. All of God's critters are running around killing each other without compunction.

Seems to me, whether you believe or not, we benefit from the idea that there is right and wrong. And right and wrong can't be determined by a man, or a handful of men, or an entire society, right? All that relativist crap they like to teach you in college... who are we to say that stoning aldutresses is immoral....

Sure, I understand the reluctance to change our habits. But to blame science and scientists when the same science and scientists delivered the life to which they have become accustomed - I find it all a bit humorous.

That said theres crazyness abound in this debate.

Who is "blaming" scientists and what are they being blamed with? people have a right to ask questions so they can be better informed. How many scientists have told us for instance, that something is bad for your health, only to say the exact opposite a few years later? I'm not trying to torch scientists, I'm just saying that they should expect some questions from free-thinking people when they make certain claims. It hurts nobody to ask questions. Years ago they said coffee was unhealthy for us, now apparently it's got antioxidants in it and they're saying it's good for us.

Truth seems to be a hard concept to grasp. We all seem to want a 'hard' truth that will stay with us forever. That only works for a limited few things like, say, dead.

For most things, the truth is a moving target. At times it can change radically based on new information or dicovouries.

Truth is also often a filtered perspective on reality. Your position affects the nature of a 'truth'.

There was a really interesting article in Scientific American a couple of years ago on what the universe looks like. Our view of it is often very limited by our visual bias.

Being a social construct science can not exist in a society w/o being socially influenced. When science is politicized and used to support ideologies supported by the polity (state), it in turn decides what "science" is taught and often funded. In most Western democracies the basic education system is state run and therefore politicized by default. Universities, even departments have there own "politics" which if you deviate from enough you don't get a job. When the researchers being hired in a field are filtered out by their politics it undermines a basic premise of science. Perhaps I'm wrong but I think we mean mostly the same thing but are just saying it differently.



I agree completely, but would add that it doesn’t have to be and usually isn’t a dichotomy. We’re just use to seeing it that way.



I agree with everything but the first part. I agree that science is misapplied for various reasons however, I don't see it as just a misapplication but rather an inherent "flaw" in that science by it's nature is deconstructionist. Science must deconstruct the universe to understand it since it's improbable that one could understand everything all at one. So I see no other way for science to operate than to dole out "knowledge" as it becomes available even when some might want it suppressed. The result is sometimes unintended consequences that the level of research had yet to uncover.



I agree that this is the politicization of science but much of this politicization is being done by "scientists" themselves when they sign public policy petitions, and speak or publish advocating policy.



I find the tool analogy of science wanting. It presupposed that science inanimate like a hammer and it's the wielder who imparts intent. However, science is not inanimate it's social and can not by it's nature exist outside a social/cultural context of it‘s wielders. So there is IMO (and the opinion of sociologist who study science) that no such thing as a pure science devoid of cultural/ideological biases can exist.

Science can only be declared the "best tool for figuring out the how of things" if one defines what is "best." That's just a sort of circular reasoning. Since we don't know what the outcome of our "scientific" societies is, it's hard for me to quantify what's best. In the short run science rocks my living room with 9.2 sound and 134" screen, but if I'm dead or living underground with a few other survivors 5 years from now because the atmosphere passed some unknown tipping point we've missed I might want to re-evaluate what is “best.”



I’m in complete agreement.

Science is by it's nature a social process and can not therefore can not be separated from the cultures/beliefs/ideologies in which it is embedded. From the foundations of what is taught in school to it's sources of funding science is socially/financially biased to it's core. So even scientists who don't come forward and use their research to justify the direction of public policy are still mired in a tainted system. Studying the sociology of science quickly shows one that the idea of scientists being dispassionate researchers pushing forward human knowledge w/o bias is a myth.

Science has been so co-opted by those in power thru public education that it's become the new defacto state religion in many places and for many people. I read a fantastic critique of Western education (including Soviet) by a couple of Russian's back in the 70s that talks about this very subject brilliantly.

In the greater context large organized religions evolved (if you believe in the science) in part to explain (or help people know and relate to the world) and help those seeking power control masses of people. Science supplanted religion for the knowing the world for many people. And It's most vocal proponents (often communists and socialists seeking to minimize religion) have used it to justify how people should relate to each other.



I'm not communicating clearly when I talk about religion. Not all religion is Judeo/Christian. I try when it's not obvious from the context to be clear when I am referring them. I say this because I've seldom not met or read about devout Buddhists and Taoists who were not the most moral people ever.



If everyone agreed on what is common sense there would not have ever been a need for religion, ideology or methods for group decision making to evolve. That we seem to need such structures to support/glue our societies together is all the evidence I need that “sense” is either not all that common and/or universal.

People develop their morals largely through interactions with "significant others" (parents teachers, clergy, professors). Which morals people chose to follow be the whether derived from religious or secular sources is usually what is most convenient or what they can get away with at the time. I think Cam describe how we come by our morals quite well.



I'm not aware of any inherent morality. Humans can not survive outside of social contexts (even if raised by wolves). So there is no way to know what is a pure "inherent" moral and one that is socially learned/influenced. What society even modern do we have a knowledge of that did/does not have "religion" (belief system)?


Why?

It's not foolish to learn from history. Modern intellectuals pride themselves on being so much smarter than people in times gone by, however there are many things the ancients knew and could do that we have trouble figuring out today. We can see the same patterns repeated throughout history because people find the social/cultural/moral knowledge of their predecessors inconvenient in relation to present social addenda’s. The reasoning is always that we are smarter and know more than they did. Invariably we end up repeating the same mistakes. It's happening again right now as it always is.



No irony that I see. People behave selfishly today just as moral compass definers of 1500, 3000 years ago understood. Enjoying the fruits of industrialization is easy since the "scientific process" is telling us just to enjoy the new toys not how they should/shouldn’t be used. When "science" does tell us how to use the toys we baulk at it, fighting even things like seatbelt and helmet laws designed to protect us. Unlike being the catalyst for our new toys the "scientific process" is now telling us we can't play with them the way we have become accustomed to. In other words the "scientific process" is trying to establish what is right and wrong. Morality?

Many people born in the West since WWII are accustomed to a lifestyle and level of progress unparalleled in human history and have come to believe it the norm. Just as they have come to believe that increasing standards of living through the progression of technology is the norm. I think we are in for a rude awakening.

While I've enjoyed this exchange I think we are at an impasse based on our different education/experiences are bogging down in semantics and increasingly chasing eachothers tails in ever smaller circles. Please don’t take it as me being rude if I drop out of the discussion on some points as I don’t see how further comments will further help to clarify some things.

Cheers,
Dean

Cam for the record I am also an atheist and have been for as long I I've know what it means, but not an anti-theist as I can not prove god(s) don't exist so I'm not comfortable pushing IMO un-provable beliefs on others. I was even invited to leave vacation bible school after a couple of days when I was about 6 because I kept arguing with the teachers about creation because it didn't fit the "science." I’m sure at least a couple of people reading this have thought that I am a religious person and taken my statements in that context so I’ll clear that up right now.

I do however, take exception to those who trash religion based on a selective reading of history and then turn around and give secular belief systems a pass with the same selectivity. Though young, secular belief systems have slaughtered more of their own people both in numbers and as a percentage of population than any religion I know of. They have also been the direct or indirect causes of the greatest loss of life in warfare. Sadly secularist are so focused on the evils of religion they haven't seen when the nature of their own belief systems are turning on them.

Yes, human beings are animals, but no, a supernatural being didn't create a thing, because there is no such being. But, let's say there is a God. Why would that "perfect" being create something with innate immorality? If nature is amoral, as you claim, then it must be innate.

Comparing nature and the animal kingdom to human beings, in regards to morality, just doesn't make sense. All animals that are carnivores, kill only for their survival. Even if animals (outside of the apes) were cognizant of morality, nothing would change; there's no checkout aisle at the grocery store specifically for lion's purchasing organically fed free range zebras.

Chimpanzees (our closest relative) are altruistic (a form of morality), they care for each other etc. They act just as moral human beings do.

I would contend that any rational human being would consider it immoral if another human being (totally cognizant) took a crap on the floor and someone's house, but they wouldn't consider it immoral if a baby or a dog did the same thing. Just as it would be immoral for a human if they grabbed food from a table without consent, but it doesn't make it immoral if the dog does the same; simply because they have no sense of morality.

Actually Cam, there are species of animals that kill just for sport, they don't necessarily kill only for food. Tigers have been known to do this, not sure about other preditors, but I agree, most animals kill for survival or to protect an area they consider their 'turf'(land or mate).

Wow. This has really turned into something far different from from the irony of rain in BC,Canada and snow in Louisiana, USA.

Scott

Naaaahh!! looks like a typical Axiom multi-hijack thread to me!

Remember the monkey that recently tried to rip the face off of a woman. I wouldn't say that monkeys act the same morally as humans do. Every watch them pick at each others butts at the zoo.

Domesticating a wild animal in a non-controlled environment. What a brilliant idea!

Hmmm... I think we are talking about slightly different things.

Perhaps it is better to say that the scientific method is the best way to discover the basic nature of things. It is the application of scientific method, or the results of scientific method that is the socialization of politicization of science.

There is a basic human characteristic that is essential for good basic science to happen: intense curiosity. My brother worked as a research lab tech for years, and those who did the best science had that one characteristic in common. Intense curiosity drives people to ignore the social consequences of their research.

My brothers boss of many years was a good example of someone who had both the social skills to survive the politics of funding and the intense curiosity to do very good science. It is people like these that often form dissenting voices that eventually take science in new directions.

People forget that real domestication takes quite a few generations.





Hell, my kids are still works in progress.

Yes, that is the role of basic science. Applied science, on the other hand, is the opposite. It takes multiple bits of basic science and builds it back up into something we use to manipulate our environment.

Basic science deconstructs to get a set of basic tools or building blocks. Applied science then picks up the blocks and tools and builds something.

In the midst of all this we have manipulators that try to hide certain blocks or tools or mis-apply them for their own gain.

To say science is flawed is an over-generalization.

Either way, politicization by both the extreme left and right is not particularly helpful in a debate that may very well have a significant impact on our near term well being.

I look at the whole climate debate from a different angle: what are the consequences of being wrong on either side of the debate.

If climate scientists are wrong, we spend a bunch of billions on reducing our impact on the planet and at the very least improve the quality of the air we breath and the water we drink.

If the other side is wrong and we do nothing, we cause wholesale change in our climate and also cause a whole lot of death destruction and misery.

I figure that the wealthiest 2% of the population can afford a few billion in insurance.

Perhaps it is because you live in the idyllic hinterlands of the north :), but it appears you have not met many of the people I have, if you believe that they are all in posession of a moral compass such as yours.

Comparing man to animals makes perfect sense because man is an animal. Having discarded superstition that should be easy to discern, eh?

Also, you mistook my support for the absolutes that religion provides for actual belief in the divine. That is not the case.

But laws and gov't do provide a measure of disincentive to people who would otherwise have no qualms with all sorts of barbarity. Man's inhumanity to man has been pretty well established by now.

Not responding to anyone in particular....

I agree with whoever said science is a tool, nothing more and nothing less. It certainly is a valuable process for understanding and manipulating tiny pieces of the universe. I feel pretty safe in saying it's never going to answer the big questions that give meaning to life, though. No matter how many experiments are done, it's going to fall short. There's simply no replacement for God or whatever your belief system calls it when it comes to filling in the void. Our ignorance is always going to be greater than our knowledge. If God exists in our ignorance, then he's always going to be a more powerful force than science can ever hope to be. Even scientists have Mother Nature. Oh, the mysteries of Mother Nature. They acknowledge there's some unseen force at work. The universe works SOMEHOW. I don't think we should bury our heads in the sand and ignore our own curiosity, but I also don't see how believing in some distant triumph of science over the universe is productive. There's nothing sacred about it. Maybe every religion is a fiction--I'm not qualified to say--but at least they don't pretend that everything is going to be revealed to us. It makes no sense to me when people try to prop science up as any sort of rebuttal to faith.

CV, I share your frustration about people portraying science as a replacement for religion. I do, however, find fault with this:


That all will be revealed in heaven is one of Christianity's (alleged) rewards for living a life that pleases the gatekeeper.

Oh, I thought we just went there to sing praises for eternity. How is anyone going to learn anything over the singing? Maybe that's one of the things we'll learn.

I'm sure that came off as highly offensive. Just to be clear, I have no problem with anyone's idea of Heaven.

Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.

If you offended anyone they're supposed to turn the other cheek, right?

I always had trouble with that phrase. I didn't understand how it wouldn't be both cheeks turning.

In ancient Rome you struck a slave or lesser person with the back of your right hand to show you were superior. Striking with the palm of the right hand was only done to a social equal. The left hand was not used as it was the hand you wiped your . . . with, just like you don’t wave with your left hand in many countries today. By turning the other cheek you were demanding the person strike you again with the palm of the right hand thereby treating you as an equal. At least that’s what’s it’s believed to have meant.


Though today it means not to return aggression with aggression as you say Peter.

LMAO at that!

::really bad french accent:: I turn both cheeks and fart in your general direction you silly knnnnnnnnniggit...

Wow, French maids talk dirty.