RE: Global mass-extinction to begin by 2100

RE: Global mass-extinction to begin by 2100 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

heavyblinker -> RE: Global mass-extinction to begin by 2100 (9/23/2017 11:52:31 AM)
I am really tired of the argument that since a few people made flawed predictions about the future, it must mean that all predictions about the future lack credibility. I'm not saying this is a prophecy or set in stone, and of course there are all kinds of variables at play... but skepticism should depend on relevant evidence, not attacks on the credibility of 'smart people'.

WhoreMods -> RE: Global mass-extinction to begin by 2100 (9/23/2017 11:57:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker I am really tired of the argument that since a few people made flawed predictions about the future, it must mean that all predictions about the future lack credibility. I'm not saying this is a prophecy or set in stone, and of course there are all kinds of variables at play... but skepticism should depend on relevant evidence, not attacks on the credibility of 'smart people'. When they stop treating the most laughably fuckwitted SF predictions about the future as being analogous to the whole of futurology, I'll try to care about that one. Until then? Not so much. It's just monkeys making it easier for themselves to ignore stuff they don't like, so why even pretend to pay that any attention over failed predictions when they do it for stuff that turned out to be right as well?

CreativeDominant -> RE: Global mass-extinction to begin by 2100 (9/23/2017 4:41:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker I am really tired of the argument that since a few people made flawed predictions about the future, it must mean that all predictions about the future lack credibility. I'm not saying this is a prophecy or set in stone, and of course there are all kinds of variables at play... but skepticism should depend on relevant evidence, not attacks on the credibility of 'smart people'. Ahhh..."relevant evidence"...In January 1970, Life Magazine reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” Again...the SOLID, RELEVANT EVIDENCE...was wrong.

heavyblinker -> RE: Global mass-extinction to begin by 2100 (9/24/2017 12:47:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker I am really tired of the argument that since a few people made flawed predictions about the future, it must mean that all predictions about the future lack credibility. I'm not saying this is a prophecy or set in stone, and of course there are all kinds of variables at play... but skepticism should depend on relevant evidence, not attacks on the credibility of 'smart people'. Ahhh..."relevant evidence"...In January 1970, Life Magazine reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” Again...the SOLID, RELEVANT EVIDENCE...was wrong. You obviously didn't understand the point I was trying to make, and the fact that you didn't says a lot about why denialism works so well on people like you. The evidence you attack needs to be RELEVANT TO EACH PREDICTION. This is very basic logic. You aren't actually attacking the specific prediction, you are attacking 'smart people' with 'fancy degrees' who make predictions based on 'solid experimental and theoretical evidence'. The conclusion you are drawing here is that since this prediction was wrong, it follows that there's a good chance every single prediction that scientists make about the future will also be wrong. You're trying to give everyone in the class a zero on an exam because someone got a single question wrong, and you're not even looking at why they got the question wrong in the first place, or whether or not the prediction was an absolute or whether it depended on measures not being taken to reduce air pollution.

WhoreMods -> RE: Global mass-extinction to begin by 2100 (9/24/2017 4:56:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker I am really tired of the argument that since a few people made flawed predictions about the future, it must mean that all predictions about the future lack credibility. I'm not saying this is a prophecy or set in stone, and of course there are all kinds of variables at play... but skepticism should depend on relevant evidence, not attacks on the credibility of 'smart people'. Ahhh..."relevant evidence"...In January 1970, Life Magazine reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” Again...the SOLID, RELEVANT EVIDENCE...was wrong. You obviously didn't understand the point I was trying to make, and the fact that you didn't says a lot about why denialism works so well on people like you. The evidence you attack needs to be RELEVANT TO EACH PREDICTION. This is very basic logic. You aren't actually attacking the specific prediction, you are attacking 'smart people' with 'fancy degrees' who make predictions based on 'solid experimental and theoretical evidence'. The conclusion you are drawing here is that since this prediction was wrong, it follows that there's a good chance every single prediction that scientists make about the future will also be wrong. You're trying to give everyone in the class a zero on an exam because someone got a single question wrong, and you're not even looking at why they got the question wrong in the first place, or whether or not the prediction was an absolute or whether it depended on measures not being taken to reduce air pollution. They think that works to "disprove" the theory of evolution (it doesn't, but they don't appear to have noticed that), so they extend the same approach to other bits of science that they dislike (like the evidence for AGW) as well as attempts at prediction. It's hardly surprising to see the approach extended to cover any sort of expertise as a whole, is it?

Lucylastic -> RE: Global mass-extinction to begin by 2100 (9/24/2017 5:01:28 AM)
Of course since the good old 70s, pollution was addressed, hunger was addressed, technology has progressed in leaps an bounds, thanks mostly to people who decided NOT to let the "predictions" come true. Of course hunger and pollution are an issue, but thats down to capitalism, not bad science.

WhoreMods -> RE: Global mass-extinction to begin by 2100 (9/24/2017 5:08:27 AM)
Of course, Lucy. That;s why I find the spectacle of our resident RWNJs and apologists for the plutocracy claiming that the global warming thing is a conspiracy started by Al Gore so hilarious. People have been making dire predictions about pollution since the '50s at least (I'm not sure, but I think Carson's Silent Spring was published in 1947), and it had certainly gone mainstream by the early '70s when novels like The Sheep Look Up and The Monkey Wrench Gang and films like Soylent Green and Silent Running were appearing.

Lucylastic -> RE: Global mass-extinction to begin by 2100 (9/24/2017 5:19:43 AM)
As long as they have theirs, the planet and other people around the world can go pound sand....oily sand FUck, Gore is a beginner to the program

WhoreMods -> RE: Global mass-extinction to begin by 2100 (9/24/2017 5:44:34 AM)
I suppose they're the sort of people who think that David Bowie was an innovator because they haven't heard any of the records he based his career on ripping off: the luaghing gnome relates to Todd Rundgren in much the same way that Al Gore relates to the ecological activists of the '80s and '90s.

heavyblinker -> RE: Global mass-extinction to begin by 2100 (9/24/2017 6:56:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Of course, Lucy. That;s why I find the spectacle of our resident RWNJs and apologists for the plutocracy claiming that the global warming thing is a conspiracy started by Al Gore so hilarious. People have been making dire predictions about pollution since the '50s at least (I'm not sure, but I think Carson's Silent Spring was published in 1947), and it had certainly gone mainstream by the early '70s when novels like The Sheep Look Up and The Monkey Wrench Gang and films like Soylent Green and Silent Running were appearing. It actually isn't funny so much as it's really depressing, the same as anyone actually thinking that Trump is anything more than an international embarrassment is depressing. I get that the RWNJs on this board are just mindlessly partisan, but I have to wonder if they realize on any level just how deeply they're humiliating themselves... probably not. They aren't even willing to entertain the possibility, refuse to actually think about it, and refuse to accept any source of information that doesn't reinforce their stupidity. It doesn't help that you have 'think tanks' like The Heartland Institute actively encouraging them to be stupid, massaging their egos for going along with their ridiculous conspiracies, logical fallacies and outright lies... and bullying/mocking/smearing anyone who doesn't.

WhoreMods -> RE: Global mass-extinction to begin by 2100 (9/24/2017 8:12:16 AM)
Once you destroy the notion of truth, or even discredit it, reality becomes malleable and a lot easier to distort to appease a partisan audience. If they're colluding with you in denying facts that you don't like you can make them go along with anything else. It's like that buddhist thing about the first step being the most important, dig?

CreativeDominant -> RE: Global mass-extinction to begin by 2100 (9/24/2017 11:53:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker I am really tired of the argument that since a few people made flawed predictions about the future, it must mean that all predictions about the future lack credibility. I'm not saying this is a prophecy or set in stone, and of course there are all kinds of variables at play... but skepticism should depend on relevant evidence, not attacks on the credibility of 'smart people'. Ahhh..."relevant evidence"...In January 1970, Life Magazine reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” Again...the SOLID, RELEVANT EVIDENCE...was wrong. You obviously didn't understand the point I was trying to make, and the fact that you didn't says a lot about why denialism works so well on people like you. The evidence you attack needs to be RELEVANT TO EACH PREDICTION. This is very basic logic. You aren't actually attacking the specific prediction, you are attacking 'smart people' with 'fancy degrees' who make predictions based on 'solid experimental and theoretical evidence'. The conclusion you are drawing here is that since this prediction was wrong, it follows that there's a good chance every single prediction that scientists make about the future will also be wrong. You're trying to give everyone in the class a zero on an exam because someone got a single question wrong, and you're not even looking at why they got the question wrong in the first place, or whether or not the prediction was an absolute or whether it depended on measures not being taken to reduce air pollution.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.4384766