Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Community Forums
 General Discussion
 The water cooler, part 3
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 54

leoofno
Skeptic Friend

USA
346 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2011 :  13:40:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send leoofno a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

Originally posted by leoofno

My point is that cooler-than-normal weather is often used by the leaders in the global warming "skeptic" community to claim that its not happening, and that climate scientisis are a bunch of liars. Yet, they never even mention warmer-than-normal weather in a GW context. I think that displays their bias and hipocracy quite nicely.

In responce to those who say that climate scientists do the same in reverse, I say "Show me". It has been my experience when reading statements from these scientists that they almost always point out the difference between weather and climate, and state that both cold and hot weather can not be used to reach any conclusions on the validity of global warming. They WILL say that increased drought and warm weather are to be expected from GW, but that it is impossible to tell if the current weather is in any way related.

I would like to see statements from actual climate scientists (or even Al Gore) saying the extreme weather is due to GW, not some news journalist who may be more interested in generating readers than telling the truth.


Dude that fact that you lump Al Gore in the same breath with actual scientists is laughable beyond belief. You are talking about a clown who has now cleared well over a $100 million dollars in personal income over his "the sky is falling" ramblings. The dude still flies private jets all around the world while asking all the common folks to "sacrifice". This is the Benny Hinn of the MMGW crowd.

I don't care about Al Gore's income. It has no bearing on the issue. I asked for evidence that climate scientists say that extreme weather is proof of GW. I am not surprised that you don't have any. (And yes, I even included Al as a possible source to make it easier for you.)

So far you've said a whole lot of nothing, which I fully expect to continue.

"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25755 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2011 :  14:36:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

What I am saying is that maybe our meaning given to the word "artificial" or "un-natural" is just a made up figment of our imagination?
Yes, you're saying that you don't know how language works. All words are just "made up." By people. All of English is artificial.
Again, why are some or all of man's actions deemed un-natural or artificial if we are all just random byproducts of mother earth? Simply because we currently have the most intellect?
No, it's because that's what the words mean. We have a concept for "made by humans" that's given the word "artificial." We also have a concept of things created by elk, but we don't have a special word for it.
If not then why is that we set ourselves apart from the rest of mother earth's creation by saying that our actions are un-natural or artificial?
Because that's what the words mean. We could very well have special words for "beaver-made" or "elk-made" or "volcano-made," but we don't.

(Well, we can. "The flooding in the woods is castorogenic." That's easy.)

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25755 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2011 :  14:40:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock

We aren't so special that anything we do should not be considered natural.
There are multiple meanings for the word "natural." One of which is as a synonym for "not man-made."

If we stuck with just the one meaning, then "natural" would have to apply to everything since there is nothing that is super- or un-natural.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25755 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2011 :  14:43:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

After thinking about it a little bit I suppose if you use the definition of artificial as "human contrived" then you could say that a man made pond is an artificial pond but a pond made by a beaver is not artificial. So by saying it is artificial all you are doing is saying that the random byproduct of nature responsible for the pond, in this case, was man.
Indeed. Since all things are random byproducts of nature, we give them different names rather than go around saying, "hey, you, hand me that thing there."

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25755 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2011 :  14:51:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

Nope. According to M-W something can be natural and artificial both at the same time.
Only by equivocating on the context of discussion. A wooden spear with a knapped stone point strapped on with a leather thong is "natural" in that it is made of no man-made substances, but it is clearly "articifial" in that it was made by a man. Those are two different contexts, and to switch between them to try to score semantic points is both lazy and dishonest.

Carbon dioxide is clearly natural in that it's made of regular old boring atoms, but a whole lot of the CO2 in our atmosphere comes from solely human activities, and so was artificially produced.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25755 Posts

Posted - 08/04/2011 :  14:54:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

The simple fact is if humans are causing global warming (and they are
You do not know this.
Yes, we do.
- the only scientists who disagree with this are in the employ of the energy companies)
That is not true.
Name one climate scientist who doubts that human activities cause climate change who does not work for an energy company. Just one.
Bankrupting the American people with artificial astronomical energy cost is not the way to do this.
According to your logic, above, that'd be a natural astronomical energy cost.

What would be "astronomical" about changing to WWS, anyway?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2011 :  00:02:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send bngbuck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Dave.....

Since an opinion is something the person offering it thinks is true, thanks for stating the obvious.
I frequently have no idea if the opinion I am offering on a subject is "true" or not. I simply do not understahd what "true" is. Maybe you can enlighten me?
Go to Top of Page

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2011 :  00:06:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send bngbuck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Bill scott.....

I have already demonstrated that by using the dictionary definitions artificial things are natural.
You did no such thing.
Nope. According to M-W something can be natural and artificial both at the same time.
Not according to M-W. Direct citation please.
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2011 :  00:43:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by bngbuck

Dave.....

Since an opinion is something the person offering it thinks is true, thanks for stating the obvious.
I frequently have no idea if the opinion I am offering on a subject is "true" or not. I simply do not understahd what "true" is. Maybe you can enlighten me?
What could you possibly mean you don't understand what true is? It's that which is in accordance with reality. If that definition is a little too clear for you and you'd rather engage in a prolonged, tortured discussion about the definition of words like "truth," "reality" or "existing," then I'm sure there's some college freshman on a University message board somewhere who would happily oblige you.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/05/2011 00:44:29
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25755 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2011 :  07:53:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by bngbuck

I frequently have no idea if the opinion I am offering on a subject is "true" or not. I simply do not understahd what "true" is. Maybe you can enlighten me?
Since you aren't paralyzed by phenomenological doubt, it's obvious that you have a working understanding of what "true" is that's at least good enough for day-to-day tasks.
Originally posted by bngbuck over here

Dave.....
This makes your insistence that you are stating your opinion both redundant and dumb.
And I suppose that that statement of yours is not an opinion, rather a statement of fact, eh?
You suppose incorrectly.
And "smart", too, I would guess.
Certainly smarter than pontificating about a position that you, bngbuck, cannot practice with any consistency.
Dave you are as good as I am at word manipulation, but none of it conveys any thing useful.
Well, since this isn't about semantics but actions, your comment is irrelevant.
Your repetitive opinions, couched as facts, no more proves that there really are such things as facts, and that absolutes exist...
I've never asserted or even hinted at any such thing. Why do you attack a position I do not hold?
...than my converse opinion that all "facts" are really opinions instead --- instantly manufactures verity and truth.
Good!
You are just orally farting and so am I. So why not stop, already?
Ah, we're both behaving poorly, but I should be the one to stop? If you can't find a way to lay off, then it's you who have the problem here.
So, "the sky is blue" and "I don't make claims, I express opinion" are both completely improper "fact claims" since neither is couched in terms of probability, correct?
Most Junior High school kids have learned that the apparent blueness of the sky is illusory and is the result of the scattering of sunlight, not a truly blue surface or reflected truly blue surface. The probability of the sky actually being blue is far less than one thousand of one percent, but probably more than the probability of a God existing who decided that that sky should be blue.
The blueness or lack thereof of the sky has nothing whatsoever to do with what I'd written. Do you need help parsing the sentence? You may use a lot of ten-cent words, bngbuck, but your ability to interpret simple grammar seems to be lacking. Or is your exposition on Rayleigh scattering just a dodge to avoid dealing with the subject at hand?
But because neither you or I nor anyone can prove either of those statements or, their inverse or converse constructions, all anyone can properly state is that the sky very probably is not blue and there very probably is no God.
That assertion is itself not "properly couched in terms of probability."
Wherever you learned that Bayesian probability is identical to mathematical probability as determined by statistical analysis, it is just plain wrong.
That is an assertion that is not "properly couched in terms of probability."

Beyond which, a Bayesian analysis only generates useful new information if the prior probabilities on which it is based have empirical justification. Otherwise: garbage in, garbage out.
No I cannot give you decimal point integers...
Nobody asked you to.
...any more than you can put a floor under your vacuous idea that all opinion is some kind if "fact claim".
Since nobody holds an opinion they think is false, the idea is well supported by reality.
This word-worrying is just plain stupid.
I'm not the one playing semantic games, here.
I am not stupid or "dumb", nor are you.
The fact that you cannot distinguish between being dumb and doing a dumb thing is not my responsibility.
It does not behoove either of us to act that way.
They why do you insist on doing so, repeatedly?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2011 :  12:07:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.



Yes, you're saying that you don't know how language works. All words are just "made up." By people. All of English is artificial.

All of English is artificial (human derived), I agree. I also agree that English is natural as it is the result of man's action who was created in accordance with nature (natural). I also agree that English is not natural. (not man made)

Again, why are some or all of man's actions deemed un-natural or artificial if we are all just random byproducts of mother earth? Simply because we currently have the most intellect?
No, it's because that's what the words mean. We have a concept for "made by humans" that's given the word "artificial." We also have a concept of things created by elk, but we don't have a special word for it.

Right, artificial simply identifies man as the source rather than a beaver or elk etc... while natural actions refer to man, elk, beaver.... depending on which meaning you happen to be pointing to. If you point to another meaning now you must conclude that man's action are unnatural. The meanings contradict themselves.

If not then why is that we set ourselves apart from the rest of mother earth's creation by saying that our actions are un-natural or artificial?
Because that's what the words mean. We could very well have special words for "beaver-made" or "elk-made" or "volcano-made," but we don't.

(Well, we can. "The flooding in the woods is castorogenic." That's easy.)

You are making this more complex then need be. My only point was that, going by the definitions, something can be artificial (human derived) and natural (in accordance with nature) both at the same time. Don't get bent with me. I didn't assign the meaning to the words, I just used them.




We aren't so special that anything we do should not be considered natural.
There are multiple meanings for the word "natural." One of which is as a synonym for "not man-made". If we stuck with just the one meaning, then "natural" would have to apply to everything since there is nothing that is super- or un-natural.




But everything is natural by definition of the word natural, unless the word has duel meanings that contradict each other. A pond built by man is natural in the sense that man is created in accordance with nature (natural) or he would not be here, and so his actions are by definition natural. Or you could apply the meaning (not man made) and now the statement is false and contradicts the previous meaning.

They screwed up by not just settling for the word artificial alone as describing something made by man rather then also giving the word "natural" duel meanings that contradict each other.




Bankrupting the American people with artificial astronomical energy cost is not the way to do this.
According to your logic, above, that'd be a natural astronomical energy cost.

That's my point. Because they give conflicting meanings to one word I could say that the costs were raised artificially, naturally and unnaturally all at the same time and be correct.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Edited by - Bill scott on 08/05/2011 12:08:32
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25755 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2011 :  13:16:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

But everything is natural by definition of the word natural, unless the word has duel meanings that contradict each other. A pond built by man is natural in the sense that man is created in accordance with nature (natural) or he would not be here, and so his actions are by definition natural. Or you could apply the meaning (not man made) and now the statement is false and contradicts the previous meaning.

They screwed up by not just settling for the word artificial alone as describing something made by man rather then also giving the word "natural" duel meanings that contradict each other.
Welcome to the world of adults, where language is complex, changes over time, and some things which make it into common use are just stupid. Some words are their own antonyms, depending on context (like apology, custom or fast). Deal with it, there is no "they" to complain about.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9640 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2011 :  03:04:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
You guys may have recognised that I haven't posted much the last week and a half...

I've been out-of-town, visiting Paris. Went to places, took some pictures. Will be posting a few of them eventually.

It was great though.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13312 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2011 :  12:11:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

You guys may have recognised that I haven't posted much the last week and a half...

I've been out-of-town, visiting Paris. Went to places, took some pictures. Will be posting a few of them eventually.

It was great though.

Hope you had fun! Can't wait to see the photo of you with Mickey ears from Disney Euro...


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2011 :  07:38:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.




But everything is natural by definition of the word natural, unless the word has duel meanings that contradict each other. A pond built by man is natural in the sense that man is created in accordance with nature (natural) or he would not be here, and so his actions are by definition natural. Or you could apply the meaning (not man made) and now the statement is false and contradicts the previous meaning.

They screwed up by not just settling for the word artificial alone as describing something made by man rather then also giving the word "natural" duel meanings that contradict each other.

Welcome to the world of adults, where language is complex, changes over time, and some things which make it into common use are just stupid.

Hey you don't have to get all snooty with me for simply pointing out the contradiction in the meanings.


Deal with it, there is no "they" to complain about.

The "they" I was referring to here was Merriam-Webster for not proofreading and discovering that they had posted conflicting meanings for the same word before they had released their online dictionary.

But this only leads us to my underlying point, why do "they" feel the need to assign the conflicting meaning (not man made) to the word natural in the first place? We already have the word "artificial" if you simply want to identify man as the force of nature causing a particular object or a phenomena to appear or occur.

Do we draw a distinction and say man's actions are unnatural because he is a living being with intelligence? Then why is not a beaver or an elk's actions, and the results of those actions, deemed unnatural as well? Why pick out man and distinguish him from the rest of the living creatures put here by nature by declaring his actions alone as unnatural?

Do we draw a distinction and say man's actions are unnatural because he is currently the most intelligent of the living beings that nature has created? If so then before man, the most intelligent being of that day, was it's actions unnatural as well? And if man were to go extinct tomorrow would then the 2nd most intelligent being on earth, would its actions now be unnatural?

You see we are told in the Bible that man was made special by God and was set apart from the rest of his creation and that he will have dominion over the entire creation. And this is so self-evident that even un-believers and those who have never read the Genius account before recognize this self-evident reality. But since they refuse to acknowledge God and his order or are unaware of it they, for no reason given and with no authority to do so, attach the qualifier (not man made) as one of the meanings for natural, even though it contradicts early meanings given for the word. So out of all the millions of beings and forces of nature at work on our earth they pick out man and with a wave of their magic wand they deem his actions as unnatural. They see God's self-evident truth in reality that man was created special and given dominion over all but instead of acknowledging God they simply give a hand wave and declare man's actions as "unnatural". The Christian will say that man is set apart from the rest of creation because God made him that way while the unbeliever will address this self-evident truth by simply declaring that man's actions are unnatural with no explanation or reason as to why they are unnatural, other than to say they are unnatural because we said so.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 54 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.72 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000