|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 16, 2019 9:12:00 GMT
I can't explain why I believe that the temperature of the planet has changed one degree. I simply trust that others have done whatever that takes because their organizations have names that sound scientificky to me. I also cannot explain how I know that the eustatic sea level has changed one eighth inch per year. I simply trust that others have done whatever that takes and have scientificky sounding names. I missed the day in class when it was taught that such levels of precision are not realistic. I've forgotten all science and math I ever learned if any and now simply believe anything so long as it does not appear to have anything to do with religion. I really like Arlon and often tease him about his enlightening and profound wisdom for entertainment. I especially enjoyed the day Arlon taught us the term ceteris paribus. That was really cool. I corrected some insignificant typos, but thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Mar 16, 2019 10:38:30 GMT
You missed out using the words “that we know of” quite a few times. If something isn’t recorded (or the records don’t survive) it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 16, 2019 10:53:27 GMT
My belief is bullshit? How do you know that? Do you have any proof? The burden of proof is on you. In the entire history of the human race, no one has ever been able to produce compelling evidence that any supernatural beliefs are true.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 16, 2019 10:55:41 GMT
I'm still waiting for one of yours to demonstrate how they know anything other than believing what their chosen (incorrectly) authority says. The adults in the room have no time for your sophistry. You are almost literally a sophist.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 16, 2019 10:56:30 GMT
My belief is bullshit? How do you know that? Do you have any proof? The burden of proof is on you. In the entire history of the human race, no one has ever been able to produce compelling evidence that any supernatural beliefs are true. Why do I have to prove anything? It's a personal choice. I have never said, "Others should believe too."
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 16, 2019 10:58:12 GMT
The burden of proof is on you. In the entire history of the human race, no one has ever been able to produce compelling evidence that any supernatural beliefs are true. Why do I have to prove anything? It's a personal choice. I never said, "Others should believe too." Then why even show up here? If you want to be taken seriously--and maybe you don't--then you need to articulate why your beliefs are accurate models of reality.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 16, 2019 10:59:10 GMT
Why do I have to prove anything? It's a personal choice. I never said, "Others should believe too." Then why even show up here? If you want to be taken seriously--and maybe you don't--then you need to articulate why your beliefs are accurate models of reality. Posters were asking why do people believe in God. I was answering them.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 16, 2019 11:04:57 GMT
I'm still waiting for one of yours to demonstrate how they know anything other than believing what their chosen (incorrectly) authority says. The adults in the room have no time for your sophistry. You are almost literally a sophist. As long as you can't explain anything, I might not go along. You do realize how that works? I still believe marijuana should be illegal for example. If my reticence is fine with you, it's fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 16, 2019 11:05:45 GMT
The adults in the room have no time for your sophistry. You are almost literally a sophist. As long as you can't explain anything, I might not go along. You do realize how that works? I still believe marijuana should be illegal for example. If my reticence is fine with you, it's fine with me. I can explain plenty of things. You just can't understand anything.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 16, 2019 11:07:32 GMT
As long as you can't explain anything, I might not go along. You do realize how that works? I still believe marijuana should be illegal for example. If my reticence is fine with you, it's fine with me. I can explain plenty of things. You just can't understand anything. Just not on this board.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 16, 2019 11:18:09 GMT
I can explain plenty of things. You just can't understand anything. Just not on this board. Sophistry noted.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 16, 2019 11:26:09 GMT
You're a punk, faustus5. You was always a punk. My sophistry is a little different from Arlon's, but feel free to note it as well.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 16, 2019 17:59:51 GMT
You've already told us, several times recently, that you don't think anyone can know anything about religion and God etc and, since the transcendental cannot be proven, it is all just a matter of belief. The holding of which of course you are fully entitled. The issue now is whether this view is enough to sustain repetition, especially since your epistemological views are hardly original or detailed. Insofar as anything you claim is likely to be meaningful it would by definition be meaningful only to yourself. And of course what is presented purely as a matter of opinion carries as much weight as any opposing views held on the same basis. Time to move along some. I have the right to respond to posters who respond to me. If THEY were so sure of my position, they wouldn't keep asking me what it is. Or challenging it. If you are so tired of posters asking me the same stupid questions, maybe it is time for you to move on. When I say I am tired of the other posters be sure and raise this point again. Meanwhile there is really no need to keep telling us all that you can know nothing about religion and God, and that everything you offer up on the subject is just opinion.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 16, 2019 18:32:11 GMT
I can't explain why I believe that the temperature of the planet has changed one degree. I simply trust that others have done whatever that takes because their organizations have names that sound scientificky to me. I also cannot explain how I know that the sea level has changed one eighth inch per year. I simply trust that others have done whatever that takes and have scientificky sounding names. I missed the day in class when it was taught that such levels of precision are not realistic. I've forgotten all science and math I ever learned if any and now simply believe anything so long as it does not appear to have anything to do with religion. I really like Arlon and often tease him about his enlightening and profound wisdom for entertainment. I especially enjoyed the day Arlon taught us the term ceteris paribus. That was really cool. I corrected some insignificant typos, but thanks. Unfortunately for you, I can explain most of these things quite easily - by reference to widely available peer-reviewed research and observation, or at least I can offer a most likely reason in the same way. EG: people.uncw.edu/grindlayn/gly550/fairbanks-sealevel-1989.pdfwww.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperatureEven if one nitpicks over the accuracy of the measurement of small changes over small periods, the overall trends of such larger changes over longer periods is beyond doubt. For people who read and do proper science that is. It is ironic btw to hear this kind of objection from one who believes and worships a something for which there is no measurement available at all - except perhaps on a sliding scale of credulity lol As for Ceteris paribus (or 'with other conditions remaining the same, other things being equal') rest assured that, all things considered, I will always give more weight to any scientific consensus and empirical evidence on offer than the nearly always unsubstantiated opinions of someone who, apparently, does not know, or admit, how old the cosmos or earth is, considers Einsteninan physics wrong, thinks that first life appeared through the whim of an unexplained preferred supernatural, or argues that faith healers have better health outcomes than regular science etc. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 16, 2019 18:41:32 GMT
I have the right to respond to posters who respond to me. If THEY were so sure of my position, they wouldn't keep asking me what it is. Or challenging it. If you are so tired of posters asking me the same stupid questions, maybe it is time for you to move on. When I say I am tired of the other posters be sure and raise this point again. Meanwhile there is really no need to keep telling us all that you can know nothing about religion and God, and that everything you offer up on the subject is just opinion. You maybe reading the entire thread. But obviously everybody else isn't. Because they keep asking the same questions, that require the same answers. Sorry if you are tired of my repeated answers. But the answers aren't going to change just because they keep asking me the same questions.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 16, 2019 18:50:57 GMT
When I say I am tired of the other posters be sure and raise this point again. Meanwhile there is really no need to keep telling us all that you can know nothing about religion and God, and that everything you offer up on the subject is just opinion. You maybe reading the entire thread. But obviously everybody else isn't. Because they keep asking the same questions, that require the same answers. Sorry if you are tired of my repeated answers. But the answers aren't going to change just because they keep asking me the same questions. Apology accepted.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 16, 2019 20:51:06 GMT
Unfortunately for you, I can explain most of these things quite easily - by reference to widely available peer-reviewed research and observation, or at least I can offer a most likely reason in the same way. EG: people.uncw.edu/grindlayn/gly550/fairbanks-sealevel-1989.pdfwww.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperatureEven if one nitpicks over the accuracy of the measurement of small changes over small periods, the overall trends of such larger changes over longer periods is beyond doubt. For people who read and do proper science that is. It is ironic btw to hear this kind of objection from one who believes and worships a something for which there is no measurement available at all - except perhaps on a sliding scale of credulity lol As for Ceteris paribus (or 'with other conditions remaining the same, other things being equal') rest assured that, all things considered, I will always give more weight to any scientific consensus and empirical evidence on offer than the nearly always unsubstantiated opinions of someone who, apparently, does not know, or admit, how old the cosmos or earth is, considers Einsteninan physics wrong, thinks that first life appeared through the whim of an unexplained preferred supernatural, or argues that faith healers have better health outcomes than regular science etc. Thanks again. I went through this on the politics board with a similarly wide eyed believer in science. I asked how many thermometers were used to measure the temperature of the planet and where exactly any of them were located. I still to this day have not received any count or location whatever. "Just look on page 60 and see the algorithm," I was told. There was no information, and still is not, on exact methods, which if any data points were used by any algorithm, no count of data points, no location of thermometers. The "doubts" raised by changes over "longer periods" are the perfectly rational observation that there are too many and too large changes in too many factors in local levels of the sea and too few data points to extrapolate any such precision as advertised. The only thing not in doubt is that you have no acquaintance with statistics whatever, and still cannot see the difference from ceteris paribus science. That you depend on internet pages to bedazzle me as they have you fails because I can read them. When you find the information you need to persuade a person who is not afflicted with your blind faith in science please let me know.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 16, 2019 23:02:07 GMT
Unfortunately for you, I can explain most of these things quite easily - by reference to widely available peer-reviewed research and observation, or at least I can offer a most likely reason in the same way. EG: people.uncw.edu/grindlayn/gly550/fairbanks-sealevel-1989.pdfwww.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperatureEven if one nitpicks over the accuracy of the measurement of small changes over small periods, the overall trends of such larger changes over longer periods is beyond doubt. For people who read and do proper science that is. It is ironic btw to hear this kind of objection from one who believes and worships a something for which there is no measurement available at all - except perhaps on a sliding scale of credulity lol As for Ceteris paribus (or 'with other conditions remaining the same, other things being equal') rest assured that, all things considered, I will always give more weight to any scientific consensus and empirical evidence on offer than the nearly always unsubstantiated opinions of someone who, apparently, does not know, or admit, how old the cosmos or earth is, considers Einsteninan physics wrong, thinks that first life appeared through the whim of an unexplained preferred supernatural, or argues that faith healers have better health outcomes than regular science etc. Thanks again. I went through this on the politics board with a similarly wide eyed believer in science. I asked how many thermometers were used to measure the temperature of the planet and where exactly any of them were located. I still to this day have not received any count or location whatever. "Just look on page 60 and see the algorithm," I was told. There was no information, and still is not, on exact methods, which if any data points were used by any algorithm, no count of data points, no location of thermometers. The "doubts" raised by changes over "longer periods" are the perfectly rational observation that there are too many and too large changes in too many factors in local levels of the sea and too few data points to extrapolate any such precision as advertised. The only thing not in doubt is that you have no acquaintance with statistics whatever, and still cannot see the difference from ceteris paribus science. That you depend on internet pages to bedazzle me as they have you fails because I can read them. When you find the information you need to persuade a person who is not afflicted with your blind faith in science please let me know. ^^ thinks one can't be sure if the patient has a fever unless multiple thermometers are used and their exact location is carefully documented
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 17, 2019 10:12:49 GMT
I went through this on the politics board with a similarly wide eyed believer in science. I asked how many thermometers were used to measure the temperature of the planet and where exactly any of them were located. I still to this day have not received any count or location whatever. "Just look on page 60 and see the algorithm," I was told. There was no information, and still is not, on exact methods, which if any data points were used by any algorithm, no count of data points, no location of thermometers. The "doubts" raised by changes over "longer periods" are the perfectly rational observation that there are too many and too large changes in too many factors in local levels of the sea and too few data points to extrapolate any such precision as advertised. The only thing not in doubt is that you have no acquaintance with statistics whatever, and still cannot see the difference from ceteris paribus science. That you depend on internet pages to bedazzle me as they have you fails because I can read them. When you find the information you need to persuade a person who is not afflicted with your blind faith in science please let me know. ^^ thinks one can't be sure if the patient has a fever unless multiple thermometers are used and their exact location is carefully documented You might find this interesting. How much does the planet Earth weigh? Or to put it in the more exact terms of physics, how much mass does it have? In this case you don't need to put scales all over the place. In measuring any mass it is simply a matter of the gravitational force between two objects. Weighing yourself is actually measuring the force between you and the planet Earth. F = force of gravity m 1 = your mass m 2 = Earth's mass d = distance between you and center of Earth G = to be discussed presently F = (G x m 1 x m 2) / d 2 Obviously if you know F for m 1 then you can solve for m 2. However it is necessary to know the value of G, the gravitational constant. Since all measurements of mass had to be made with the Earth as m 2, there was no value of G known without the value of m 2 unless you define the mass of the Earth as "1" Earth mass unit, which is not much of an answer. Therefore it was necessary to measure G with two known masses in some convenient unit such as kilograms, which is very difficult since it is extremely small. Henry Cavendish used two lumps of lead suspended on a long thin cord tied to a long bar between them and another piece of lead close to one of those and then measure the twist in the cord. That yielded F, m 1 and m 2 in kilograms , and d and he solved for G, which is approximately 6.67 x 10 -11 meters /( kilograms x seconds 2) Now it is possible to solve for the mass of the Earth from any measurement of weight of an object on it. It is approximately 5.97 x 10 24 kg. It is important to note in this context that this is a crude approximation. It is not the mass of the Earth within a kilogram or even within a ton. A study of the concept of precision is necessary, which is obviously your problem with climate change. Now about your measurement of the temperature of the human body, taking the temperature of the planet is not like taking the temperature of a baseball. There is too great a difference in size. So too for a human body. Also the temperature of the human body is maintained internally and varies externally. Crude estimates of healthy temperature are possible, but not on the scale of the planet.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 17, 2019 18:03:40 GMT
Unfortunately for you, I can explain most of these things quite easily - by reference to widely available peer-reviewed research and observation, or at least I can offer a most likely reason in the same way. EG: people.uncw.edu/grindlayn/gly550/fairbanks-sealevel-1989.pdfwww.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperatureEven if one nitpicks over the accuracy of the measurement of small changes over small periods, the overall trends of such larger changes over longer periods is beyond doubt. For people who read and do proper science that is. It is ironic btw to hear this kind of objection from one who believes and worships a something for which there is no measurement available at all - except perhaps on a sliding scale of credulity lol As for Ceteris paribus (or 'with other conditions remaining the same, other things being equal') rest assured that, all things considered, I will always give more weight to any scientific consensus and empirical evidence on offer than the nearly always unsubstantiated opinions of someone who, apparently, does not know, or admit, how old the cosmos or earth is, considers Einsteninan physics wrong, thinks that first life appeared through the whim of an unexplained preferred supernatural, or argues that faith healers have better health outcomes than regular science etc. Thanks again. I went through this on the politics board with a similarly wide eyed believer in science. I asked how many thermometers were used to measure the temperature of the planet and where exactly any of them were located. I still to this day have not received any count or location whatever. "Just look on page 60 and see the algorithm," I was told. There was no information, and still is not, on exact methods, which if any data points were used by any algorithm, no count of data points, no location of thermometers. The "doubts" raised by changes over "longer periods" are the perfectly rational observation that there are too many and too large changes in too many factors in local levels of the sea and too few data points to extrapolate any such precision as advertised. The only thing not in doubt is that you have no acquaintance with statistics whatever, and still cannot see the difference from ceteris paribus science. That you depend on internet pages to bedazzle me as they have you fails because I can read them. When you find the information you need to persuade a person who is not afflicted with your blind faith in science please let me know. Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinions. Which happen, as usual, to be wrong. Since you don't think substantiation is needed in such disputes then I no longer feel the need to offer anything more by way of rebuttal. (Having said that, others may reflect that global temperature data comes from thousands of observation stations around the world and visit such sites as www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm .) Again, all things being equal it is better to rely on a scientific consensus than on the words of someone who consistently speaks without authority of sources.
|
|