Article seeks to explain why many cannot be reasoned with

[lawrocket 3]

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney?page=1

I think the article had some good things about it. However, I also believe that the article is ITSELF an example of what the author wrote. The article is slanted with the underlyin notion that present scientific consensus is Truth and there is something wrong with those who don't agree that we seek to explain and understand.

For example, take a look at Fred Hoyle - a hugely influential astronomer. So influential he invented the term "The Big Bang" and did so in an effort to deride the theory of some Catholic priest named George LeMaitre. Hoyle died in 2001 NEVER buying the Big Bang BECAUSE of his philosophical rejection that the universe could have a beginning.

There is nothing in this article that does not apply to the "scientist" as well. A half century ago, Kuhn wrote that any community will be resistant to ideas that challenge the status quo. Ideas have proponents and resistors. Scientists v scientists.

It's a good article. I just wish that there would have been something to identify that we often times simply do not know which side is on the "correct" side.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I just wish that there would have been something to identify that we often times simply do not know which side is on the "correct" side.

Oh, heavens to Betsy, don't let some of the SC people see that.

Oh wait..."I'm right, you're wrong" does provide some good entertainment...carry on.

I did like that first sentence:
"A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."

My only question is why do some feel the need to change him?

Now, I do take note that politicians and others in power are in a class by themselves and many times it behooves us to try to change them.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[wayneflorida 0]

>>Article seeks to explain why many cannot be reasoned with.
Who needs a long winded article for an explaination.

They're ass holes--that's why.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney?page=1

I think the article had some good things about it. However, I also believe that the article is ITSELF an example of what the author wrote. The article is slanted with the underlyin notion that present scientific consensus is Truth and there is something wrong with those who don't agree that we seek to explain and understand.

For example, take a look at Fred Hoyle - a hugely influential astronomer. So influential he invented the term "The Big Bang" and did so in an effort to deride the theory of some Catholic priest named George LeMaitre. Hoyle died in 2001 NEVER buying the Big Bang BECAUSE of his philosophical rejection that the universe could have a beginning.

There is nothing in this article that does not apply to the "scientist" as well. A half century ago, Kuhn wrote that any community will be resistant to ideas that challenge the status quo. Ideas have proponents and resistors. Scientists v scientists.

It's a good article. I just wish that there would have been something to identify that we often times simply do not know which side is on the "correct" side.

Kallend posted the original link last week. It was real eye opener for me, I mean a life changing paradigm shift in my psyche. I know I was guided to it by the ministry of the Holy Spirit to grant me additional peace and joy on journey home.

These scientific types can stack empirical evidence on top of quantum layers of subatomic particles till hell freezes over and it will not make any difference to me.

Scientific study will not prove science to a true believer with conviction.

On the other hand, no amount of first hand testimony from a born-again, transformed life will have any effect on the scientific, engineering minds. Psychological or spiritual phenomena will not alter the target fixated linear mind of those who live only on the physical plane.

The line has been clearly defined. The sides have been chosen. No further debate, discussion or elaborate examples need to be given.

Straight is the gate and narrow is the path. There are few who find it.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[lawrocket 3]

So much comes down to interpretation. What does it mean? What is the cause? Causation v. Correlation? This is where there is so much battle.

Even the Galileo isue has become overly simplified. The history is that the Church didn't mind that the sun was the center of the solar system. Galileo got in trouble when he started reinterpreting the Bible and holding himself out as an authority. Hoyle himself didn't like the idea that a priest theorized a "big bang" nor did he like the thought of a moment of creation. Science colliding with religion.

Nowadays we see the issue of interpretation of fact and even opinion. Climate "Alarmists" versus Climate "Deniers" vary in their interpretation of data and even sources. Neither is right or wrong, in my view. From what I've seen the truth lies in between. However, as Kuhn explained there is a strongf preference for the status quo. It is the "warmists" who are predicting changes. Science is about prediction and testing. We are waiting on the results.

On the other hand, warmists have also made a number of ill-advised predictions that have not come true in the short term (snow is a thing of the past). They have also made widespread attribution to disparate effects. Floods/droughts, winds/doldrums, heat/cold, etc. have all been attributed - well, global warming we'd expect to see more snow. "You said we'd see less snow."
"That, too."

On top of it all, though, are the interests of everyone involved. Yeah, the petrochemical industry has much to lose, as do farmers, truckers, etc. Climate scientists have much to lose in funding, etc. An entire industry now exists that could be destroyed or made on the basis of the results. And somehow they point to each other in snide ways.

I find this stuff fascinating...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

Kallend posted the original link last week. It was real eye opener for me, I mean a life changing paradigm shift in my psyche. I know I was guided to it by the ministry of the Holy Spirit to grant me additional peace and joy on journey home.

These scientific types can stack empirical evidence on top of quantum layers of subatomic particles till hell freezes over and it will not make any difference to me.

Scientific study will not prove science to a true believer with conviction.

On the other hand, no amount of first hand testimony from a born-again, transformed life will have any effect on the scientific, engineering minds. Psychological or spiritual phenomena will not alter the target fixated linear mind of those who live only on the physical plane.

The line has been clearly defined. The sides have been chosen. No further debate, discussion or elaborate examples need to be given.

Straight is the gate and narrow is the path. There are few who find it.

That is a quite incredible interpretation. You've managed to read that article as a reason to stay ignorant.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[nigel99 647]

Quote

So much comes down to interpretation. What does it mean? What is the cause? Causation v. Correlation? This is where there is so much battle.

Even the Galileo isue has become overly simplified. The history is that the Church didn't mind that the sun was the center of the solar system. Galileo got in trouble when he started reinterpreting the Bible and holding himself out as an authority. Hoyle himself didn't like the idea that a priest theorized a "big bang" nor did he like the thought of a moment of creation. Science colliding with religion.

Nowadays we see the issue of interpretation of fact and even opinion. Climate "Alarmists" versus Climate "Deniers" vary in their interpretation of data and even sources. Neither is right or wrong, in my view. From what I've seen the truth lies in between. However, as Kuhn explained there is a strongf preference for the status quo. It is the "warmists" who are predicting changes. Science is about prediction and testing. We are waiting on the results.

On the other hand, warmists have also made a number of ill-advised predictions that have not come true in the short term (snow is a thing of the past). They have also made widespread attribution to disparate effects. Floods/droughts, winds/doldrums, heat/cold, etc. have all been attributed - well, global warming we'd expect to see more snow. "You said we'd see less snow."
"That, too."

On top of it all, though, are the interests of everyone involved. Yeah, the petrochemical industry has much to lose, as do farmers, truckers, etc. Climate scientists have much to lose in funding, etc. An entire industry now exists that could be destroyed or made on the basis of the results. And somehow they point to each other in snide ways.

I find this stuff fascinating...

It is fascinating. My dad has spent the past 40 years pondering the human mind and belief systems.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

That is a quite incredible interpretation. You've managed to read that article as a reason to stay ignorant.

Do you mean the same way you read the Holy Bible?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

Quote

That is a quite incredible interpretation. You've managed to read that article as a reason to stay ignorant.

Do you mean the same way you read the Holy Bible?

No.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

I missed kallend's link. Sorry, John. Didn't try to upstage you.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SpeedRacer 1]

I strongly disagree with RonD's post if he is implying that scientific belief and religious belief are incompatible. If that were true, then no scientists would be religious.

In my personal experience, the study of science and nature has strengthened my belief in God, not diminshed it. The advancement of scientific knowledge actually glorifies God, by showing that his works are more fascinating and vast (both in space and time) than anything our Bronze Age ancestors could have possibly imagined.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

So much comes down to interpretation. What does it mean? What is the cause? Causation v. Correlation? This is where there is so much battle.

Even the Galileo isue has become overly simplified. The history is that the Church didn't mind that the sun was the center of the solar system. Galileo got in trouble when he started reinterpreting the Bible and holding himself out as an authority. Hoyle himself didn't like the idea that a priest theorized a "big bang" nor did he like the thought of a moment of creation. Science colliding with religion.

Nowadays we see the issue of interpretation of fact and even opinion. Climate "Alarmists" versus Climate "Deniers" vary in their interpretation of data and even sources. Neither is right or wrong, in my view. From what I've seen the truth lies in between. However, as Kuhn explained there is a strongf preference for the status quo. It is the "warmists" who are predicting changes. Science is about prediction and testing. We are waiting on the results.

On the other hand, warmists have also made a number of ill-advised predictions that have not come true in the short term (snow is a thing of the past). They have also made widespread attribution to disparate effects. Floods/droughts, winds/doldrums, heat/cold, etc. have all been attributed - well, global warming we'd expect to see more snow. "You said we'd see less snow."
"That, too."

I seem to recall the prediction being "more extreme weather".

Quote

On top of it all, though, are the interests of everyone involved. Yeah, the petrochemical industry has much to lose, as do farmers, truckers, etc. Climate scientists have much to lose in funding, etc. An entire industry now exists that could be destroyed or made on the basis of the results. And somehow they point to each other in snide ways.

I find this stuff fascinating...

Let's not forget that the "deniers" are running the best funded smear campaign in the history of the world, funded by the most profitable industry in the history of the world, which makes the funding received by NOAA, NASA, etc. climate scientists look like peanuts.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.