|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 02/01/2005 : 11:16:37 [Permalink]
|
Well, there is no real friendly way to point out to people that they are not only wrong, but foolishly wrong, about some things.
In this particular instance the individual is completely resistant to critical thinking and logic. What is left other than pointing out the absurdity of certain statements?
Just remaining silent?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2005 : 13:46:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Well, there is no real friendly way to point out to people that they are not only wrong, but foolishly wrong, about some things.
In this particular instance the individual is completely resistant to critical thinking and logic. What is left other than pointing out the absurdity of certain statements?
Just remaining silent?
Re question #1, yes there is. Re question #2, one can point out absurdity in many different ways. Re #3, no, but yes if you think the only thing left to say is to insult the person.
I'm not saying your comments were the worst. Actually, fursher's use of "you people" was more blatant, and I see he has politely recanted. But if I put myself in Storm's shoes, I would have been offended as well, and as I said, since this was done to me, it becomes more noticeable in other posts.
(Storm, forgive me for talking about you as if you aren't here. And try not to take offense as I respect your right to believe as you wish even if I don't agree.)
Some posts beg for calls of "that's absurd". When the poster is totally out of touch with reality like saying we are all doing the devil's work or something like that. But Storm's posts are polite and responsive, even if she doesn't yet connect with the scientific process. So you explain everything to your satisfaction and Storm's reply ignores the point and continues with the non-science rationales and conclusions. The way I see it is some people will never get it. Oh well. Other people, like Storm, may be trying to understand but missing the logic, or may be trying to convince us in her interpretation of events. Either way, I think such responses need a re-evaluation of the message or method.
Allow me to elaborate. I have to use a medical belief example because ghost examples aren't simple enough to demonstrate the point, (but they are the same, Storm). Say you believe every time you had a flu shot, you got sick sometime after, but not within the time frame of known side effects. After all it happened 3 times out of the last 3 shots as far as you remember. I explain it's a coincidence. I explain illnesses are common during the same time as flu shots are given and there is no relation to the shot.
So what happens? You go on believing the shots make you sick. Why? Because my imparting knowledge to you is not enough to overcome your conviction based on your personal experience.
Well, I could go on imparting the same knowledge year after year. Chances are pretty good I will never convince you. Or I could try to examine what it is that is preventing you from "getting it". Then I need to modify my approach.
Since in this setting we are only able to impart knowledge, backed up by references, my new approach will be to offer additional information, perhaps new examples or perhaps new analogies. Next year, I show you a study that compared flu shots to placebo where no one got sick. If you tell me everyone in the office who got a flu shot got sick, I explain the need for controls. For your 3 years of experience I point out that is a sample size of 3. And so on. Little by little I chip away.
But in any case, if I just tell you it's absurd, of course flu shots don't make you sick, do you think you will even listen to anything else I have to say? Or if I give up after you don't understand the concept of coincidence, without bothering to address your beliefs about sample size and controls. I might even have to address why personal experience is so powerful yet so fallible.
Well, that's been my personal experience anyway, with trying to spread the scientific process into the heads of those who don't yet understand it. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/01/2005 13:51:46 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2005 : 13:50:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Beskeptical wrote:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by furshur
you type of people
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't we have a thread on acceptable confrontation or something like that? Maybe it was on another forum.
You are probably right. I will refrain from being a jerk (at least try).
As for CONTRAILS. They do change the weather. We put tons of water vapor and particulates into the upper atmosphere. Of course this will have an effect on the cloud cover.
It is not a conspiracy, it is just a result of running gas turbines in the upper atmosphere.
I never have followed the 'contrails' thing. But there are lots of things we know do affect the weather. That was my point. If we had a way to direct the weather rather than accidental effects, it would be knowledge in the public realm. Seeding clouds is about as far as anyone has gotten in purposeful direction of the weather. There just isn't going to be some secret device that has surpassed all the known science in such a big way as the weatherwars guy implies. |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 01:55:15 [Permalink]
|
About contrails- there's serious research going on about predicting contrail formation (with a view to abating them) and the effects contrail-induced cloud cover have on weather and climate.
This site is worth looking at:
http://contrail.gi.alaska.edu
About the cloud pictures- I see a duckie and a horsie...
|
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 02:56:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ktesibios
About contrails- there's serious research going on about predicting contrail formation (with a view to abating them) and the effects contrail-induced cloud cover have on weather and climate.
This site is worth looking at:
http://contrail.gi.alaska.edu
About the cloud pictures- I see a duckie and a horsie...
I have to say in my ignorance or possibly just avoidance, all this time I thought contrails entailed some belief that they were particular shaped jet condensation that woowoos believed couldn't come from jets so had to be from UFOs.
So the controversy is do they or do they not affect weather? [palm of hand hits forehead] |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 08:31:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I have to say in my ignorance or possibly just avoidance, all this time I thought contrails entailed some belief that they were particular shaped jet condensation that woowoos believed couldn't come from jets so had to be from UFOs.
So the controversy is do they or do they not affect weather? [palm of hand hits forehead]
Somewhat incorrect on both counts, depending on to whom you speak.
Many woo-woos, for example, think that normal, everyday jet contrails behave a certain way (disapating in a short time), and that contrails that behave differently (like sticking around for a long time) indicate a "chemtrail" which is, of course, a government release of mind-control drugs or other chemicals.
Back in the real world, though: I remember back a few years, the fact that there'd been no contrails over the US for three days after 9/11 changed the weather to some extent or other made the news. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 14:34:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Re question #1, yes there is.
I disagree. If you tell somebody that what they think is foolish, especially after you have tried to demonstrate to them with evidence that they are wrong, they will get pissed no matter how you phrase it.
Sometimes the clearest way to get a point across is to be blunt.
I agree that personal insults and direct name calling are unproductive, but sometimes direct language is the best.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 22:01:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I have to say in my ignorance or possibly just avoidance, all this time I thought contrails entailed some belief that they were particular shaped jet condensation that woowoos believed couldn't come from jets so had to be from UFOs.
So the controversy is do they or do they not affect weather? [palm of hand hits forehead]
There's some evidence that increased cloud cover due to contrails has an effect on local surface temperatures. One of the papers on the site I mentioned deals with this.
There was a "chemtrails" thread here a couple of months ago, but it got pretty badly derailed.
Among chemmie believers it's an article of faith that a "normal" contrail dissipates in minutes and that any that persist longer, or spread, are by definition "chemtrails". Trying to explain that our existing knowledge of meteorology adequately explains this behavior, or that it's been observed much farther in the past (like WWII) than any eevil eevil gummint spraying program could account for usually brings forth a chorus of "look at these pictures and don't try to tell me it's normal".
What's changed is the rationale- the idea that the eevil eevil gummint is spraying us with mind control chemicals or red blood cells or disease organisms isn't too hip with the patrons of the Alcoa Haberdashery Shoppe lately. Nowadays the claims are more likely to be that the "spraying" is an attempt to reverse global warming, or a military program to control the weather, or something tied up with HAARP, which is, of course, a military progarm to control the weather, or cause artificial earthquakes, or shoot down aircraft (including the space shuttle), or something.
What never changes is the tenet that a persistent contrail is a "chemtrail".
Those cloud pics actually made me kind of nostalgic. After five years of living in a place where the skies are almost always cloudless (except during the rainy season), I miss sitting outdoors and watching nice fluffy cumulus clouds drift by.  |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
