mooeypoo

! Moderator Note SSDS, this is a thread in the mainstream-physics forum, which means we stick to mainstream-physics accepted theories. If you want to discuss a 'new idea' or your own interpretation of phenomena in the universe, you can post them in the speculation forum. Please stay on topic.

The first 'prediction' they announced for the first batch was 2010, obviously that was delayed. I'd love to believe they would start, but it got delayed so many times, I'm a bit dubious. We'll have to wait and see.

You're in it!

And I definitely didn't mean to make it look like I single you out. This also isn't the first time we have a discussion about ridicule on the forums. I think it's a valid question. Case in point: There's a huge huge debate about this within the "Atheist community" about Hitchens/Dawkins attitudes vs others, and this debate is going on from inside the camp. This is not something we're likely to just solve with a few posts and strong points. I do see ridicule as something that can be beneficial in certain cases. I do not see where it's beneficial in a *scientific* debate; not because of the people, but because of the goals of such debates. People may, of course, disagree with me. People should, however, choose the media that applies to their attitude. I, for instance, read RDF forums, but I don't participate; I think there's a huge benefit to having Richard Dawkins and his attitude and books, and I (mostly) enjoy reading what he says. Same with Hitchens. But I *personally* dislike using this attitude and participating in it. I am not advocating to close down those forums, I just don't use them. Opinions are welcome, and different opinions are also welcome, but we should all take into account, also, taht despite disagreements, there are rules to every website. RDF rules are more lax on ridicule. In fact, they tend to encourage it. That's perfectly fine for their goals. SFN discourages ridicule and "outlaws" it. That should be perfectly fine too. It's a choice the forum staff and founders made, because this is the vision they saw for THIS *particular* forum. What drives me crazy is when a really GOOD and VALID point is made in a scientific (or semi-pseudoscience) thread, but the tone is so full of ridicule that it's clearly only going to drive the other side into the defensive, rather than, perhaps, having the otehr side consider the strong and valid points. I think that's a shame. I personally think we *can* change people's views, it's just not a quick thing. But if we push them to self-defense and closing themselves up, it won't happen. That's my personal problem with over-using ridicule. I'm not saying there's no place for it in society. I'm not saying there's no place for it in some cases even in this forum, and i'm not saying I've never used it. I'm saying there *are* cases where it's counter productive to the goal. And in this particular forum, because of the specific goal it has, those happen more often than where ridicule might be productive or called for. That frustrates me as a poster, not just as staff. ~mooey

Lynching? Seriously, iNow? I wrote a whole post explaining to you what the problem is, in plain language and polite text, one that answers your previous posts and makes a point of my perceptions (which seems that are not my own alone) and you claim lynching? I explained how this isn't about ridicule, but about consistent ridicule. I even made the points throughout the thread that there *is* place for ridicule at some cases. I'm disappointed, iNow. You were always one of the most articulate members in this forum, regardless of our disagreements about attitude, and I usually found your posts to the point and thoughtful. We've had these arguments before, and you know that relatively speaking, I'm "on your side" in many points you make. The one time I lay out my rationale in a clear post, and you call it lynching? I'm not even sure how to respond to that other than repeat my point that it's incredibly hard to conduct a rational argument with you without being "pwned" or, as it seemed, accused of lynching. C'mon. ~mooey

iNow, I'm not trying to attack you. The point is, however, that some of what you're posting doesn't come off the way you seem to wish it to come off. When I was in public-speaking class, our professor always reminded us of the age-old "rule" of communication: If your audience misunderstands what you say, the fault is with you, not with them. Since I'm not the only one that pointed out you come off the way I said you do, maybe you should consider re-reading your posts, or re-assessing what you use to convey your attitude, because it comes off differently than what you intend it. Arguing that I'm the idiot who didn't read what you wrote correctly isn't really helping. I and "team" separate two things: your opinion about how to post, and your actions when you post. Your opinions are fine, and while we might agree or disagree, they're yours and you are entitled to have them. Your actions are what we respond to as staff. You can disagree with our rules, but you cannot just disregard them bcause you disagree with them. With due respect, iNow, no one is trying to change you, we're trying to change how you *act* in this forum. Why? Because that's what the rules are. Disregarding them will not change them. When a hotel tells you not to have a 50-person party in your room, they don't care about changing who you are. They are telling you what you are and are not allowed to do in their property. When we tell you to stop being obnoxious, we don't care to change who you are, we are letting you know what is and isn't acceptable here. It's your choice if you wish to rent a hotel room in light of their rules. And it's your choice to post here in light of our rules. I don't feel the need to convince you of that, because it's irrelevant. I heard your side, and I disagree, and my attempts to explain why were not meant to sway you my way, they were meant to explain my views, no more, no less. I don't argue to win. You seem to be so proud in how much you are changing your opinion if you're wrong, but your attitude doesn't allow for people to convince you that you're wrong, iNow. Quite honestly, every time I post an answer to you, I feel like I need to double-triple-quadruple check every word I make (especially since English is not my main language) so that I can make my point without being "pwned" for minor points. You tend to ignore the main point, iNow, and you do that often, and when you do that, people get tired of arguing with you, which makes it so that people give up on *trying* to show you how much you might be wrong. It's very convenient staying right by bullying people to stop arguing with you. It's not quite as "enlightened", though, is it. ~mooey I disagree. A whole section of art is done by mocking and ridicule and is EXTREMELY beneficial to society. Comic strips in news papers fit that, as well as comedy clubs, movies, stories, books, and radio shows. Unless you provide evidence that ridicule has more negative than positive in society, I'll have to maintain my strong disagreement with that, and hence with the rest of your post and maintain that ridicule *can* be useful. Quite often, even. Like anything, though, it should probably benefit from moderation, and where and when to be used, like anything. ~mooey

Wait, I think we lost one another at some point. I am not saying we're not discussing the effects on society -- I'm saying we're not discussing dry laws. I gave those examples to show how ridicule can affect society *positively*. To make a point that there *are* occasions where ridicule is useful and productive. You are the one who made the point about laws and society following rules, and that's where I pointed out the discussion wasn't about those. I think we're in more agreement than you think I don't think ridicule should be used in a scientific debate. In fact, I see very little use for it in any sort of debate at all, because debates are supposed to have the goal of mutually listening and discussing with one another, and ridicule serves for the complete opposite. But I just don't think that ridicule is completely and utterly not beneficial, ever. That's the point I was trying to make. I think it's less about the audience and more about the goal. The audience in this form might be the same that watches Jon Stewart and enjoys it. But the goal of Jon Stewart's show is completely different than the goal of this forum. Different approaches for different goals, and different tools for different occasions. See what I mean? ~mooey

Appolinaria, we're not discussing making rules for society here, we're discussing if ridicule is useful. When we get to public office and discuss which laws to propose, I'd accept your point. ~mooey

The fact society won't adhere by ridicule doesn't mean ridicule doesn't have room in society. It might not be good enough to devise rules by, but it can be used in specific cases, as I wrote above. Don't fall into the generalization fallacy yourself the fact we can't use it for particular cases or even the "biggest" cases, doesn't make it useless. ~mooey

I disagree, actually. Ridicule CAN be very effective in some cases. Stand up comedians use it a lot and they drive points home very effectively. Jon Stewart's show is brilliant in that, for instance. There are mockumentaries and parodies that do great work of ridiculing and mocking things and delivering great points too. Shows from "The Simpsons" to "Family Guy" and "Southpark" have also been very successful. There's just a time and a place for each of those. If you're out to make a point, ridicule might be a good tool sometimes. If you're out to participate in a discussion, ridicule seems to throw the participants into a self-protect mode where they just attack one another and not really listen. In those cases, it's probably not too effective. ~mooey

I think I explained how in the rest of my post, but good on you for posting a 'jab' at me, eh? Look. I have no problems just agreeing to disagree on this. I know it's a matter of style and opinion, and I actually think your style *has* room to exist, though we might differ on where and when (which is fine). You give me a feeling as if you're the one who disagrees on that too, though. I might be wrong, and if I am, please tell me. The impression I get, though, is that while I might consider your approach has room, just perhaps not everywhere, you seem to think your approach should be used everywhere. You give me the impression that instead of saying "this is my opinion vs yours" you're saying "this is my opinion and it's right". This is what I'm having most troubles with in your posts lately. This might be the wrong impression, but it's what I get from you. Maybe you can explain what you mean instead?

I'm not sure how that works..? It's not about what you say, iNow, it's how you say it. I have a choice: I can write a brilliant piece of post kicking you in the nuts, and get high-fives from people. Or I can write a post that explains why I disagree with you. You seem to want to choose the former. I choose the latter. Which would be more effective depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to preach to the choire, the former's great. If it's to educate people and get them think, the latter is great. Do you think I don't get frustrated? That I don't want to pwn people? That I don't have the snarkiness that can enable me to do that? I do, and I do and I do. But my goal is to discuss and debate. I want to *listen* to the other side so I understand it, even if I disagree with it, I want to educate people on how to think better about things, especially when I am not sure if I might be discussing issues with a teenager or a child that might actually have potential to go and get *better*. I started out as what you'd call a full on crackpot when I was a teen -- but that was my way of asking questions I was interested in, even though the answers were bunk. The more I asked, the more I thought about it, adn the more I ended up researching things and figuring out what actually happens. It's not something that happens in an instant, it takes a while. Jumping to assumption that the person in front of you is an idiot, or that they're doing this on purpose, or that they're malicious, or that they're adults, or that they will never change -- that's no different than the other side that jumps to their conclusions and generalizes *us*. If a kid comes here and asks a question you and I think is stupid, there are two ways this can end: * He will get an explanation and, even if he argues with it, will eventually think it through. Even if he won't change his mind, there's the *potential* that he might, and he might actually go learn something out of it. * He gets ridiculed for his stupid idea and his stupid way of thinking about it, he will go into the defensive, stop considering where he might actually be wrong or right, and decide scientists are a bunch of pretentious assholes who are afraid of change, and will likely get more closed minded. I would hope we want the first one to happen, and not the second. Yup. Sometimes we need to explain ourselves. Works much better when we actually do that, rather than ridicule the person who misunderstood us, don't you think?

Interesting, iNow. You seem to ridicule people who say that exact same thing from other angles. Should I be calling you a hypocrite, or just your argument? You might not notice it, but with your insistence to stick to your guns, you're not just making it hard for people to listen to what you're saying, but you're making it very difficult for people to even consider your points. We're human beings, not machines, we are affected by emotions even if the underlying text has a valid point -- anyone who ever took any sort of debate class or rhetoric knows this. Most of anything else, I think that is the biggest shame; you're a very smart, very capable person, and you make very good points. It's just impossible to read through the points or consider them through the snark and ridicule. Would you consider any of my points at all if I started this argument ridiculing your double standard? Before you say yes, please think about this carefully. I wouldn't be too sure. Ridicule is perceived as an attack, and that makes the person go on the defensive, where he (or she) are not as readily capable of actually CONSIDERING points. If you're here to convince others of your own point, you seem to be using the wrong tactics. ~mooey When I said 'no reason', I meant it in the general sense, like "there's no reason for you to cry" (there might be), "there's no reason to panic!" (there might be), etc. But fine, alllrighty, I was caught generalizing. I apologize. There are potentially some reasons to ridicule people at potentially specific occasions. Your argument, though, seems to jump from "doesn't mean that none exist" (one extreme) to "using it all the time" (other extreme). Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems like another tactic used by the people you insist on ridiculing. Rhetoric is fun. ~mooey

How I wish this was true. It might be in general, but not all scientists are 'smarter' than the average person. Scientists might be more didactic, more analytic, more mathematical -- but I wouldn't say they're generally "smarter". Succeeding in exams and analytical experimentation is not necessarily the only thing that makes a person smart. There are quite a lot of VERY smart people who aren't interested in scientific methodology or can do pure science. No, really, that's not how the world works. Soldiers are trained, they're not necessarily braver, especially when they're recruited rather than choose to join. Models aren't necessarily prettier either, they usually fit a specific mold the modelling company is looking for and dumped half a ton of makeup -- along with photoshopped images -- to make them more appealing. Professional athletes are more fit because they train a lot. Scientists are knowledgeable in their field of science. Whether or not they're "smarter" than anyone else is irrelevant. They are considered (justly so, usually) as authorities. In that aspect, scientists also need to "train a lot" to maintain their 'authority as a scientist' title, just like athletes. Even if you're born with the tendency to "get it" or to "work it", you need to study a lot and practice a lot and stay in mental shape, or you are obsolete and you stop being a scientist. There are quite a few of those throughout history that seemed to benefit psuedoscience more than science after their retirement. When scientists act like jerks and obnoxious assholes, they make it very difficult for the public to trust their authority. Beyond it, they make it hard for potentially new scientists (children and young adults) to *want* to do science. We can all condescend everyone as much as we want, but the bottom line is that rarely are people born science-ready. I was always curious about the universe, so in that aspect, I was "a skeptic" from a young age. Was I a scientist? Only in the loose term of the word, when I disassembled old radios and devised my own experiments. I didn't have the tools yet to really understand how to do the proper THINKING that science requires, and, quite often as a teen, reached conclusions taht today seem idiotic to me. I believed in the energetic powers of the body, I believed in auras and in remote viewing, I thought rocks with pretty names on them in magic shops have the power to make your heart beat faster, I thought a lot of weird things. And I was ridiculed by some science-minded folk, mainly online, but also off; I knew that I'm not stupid, and I knew I wanted to understand what's going on, but instead of explaining to me *why* my methods lead to the wrong answer, people ridiculed -- so instead of considering they might have a point, I thought they're pompous asses that are afraid of change. As a human being, there's no reason to ridicule anyone - if you believe 'non scientists' are less smart, then pure human courtesy would tell you not to ridicule them, just like pure courtesy would suggest not to ridicule a mentally disabled person, or a child. Otherwise, it's about goals. What *are* your goals? If your goals is to laugh at others and keep thinking how smart you are, then ridicule works. If your goal is to help people understand what science is about, then ridicule works against you. We can argue which goal is more noble or more worth going-after, but I just want to point out that in this current forum we're in, the latter is the goal, which is why ridicule is unacceptable. There are other places out there that go by the former, and ridicule is abundant. I personally dislike ridicule, it makes me feel cheap, as if I need to climb on other people's incapable minds to feel smart. But I do see how others enjoy it, and it's perfectly fine. There is a place for those places. This just isn't one of them. ~mooey

Actually, not quite. Is a person who lied once a liar? Usually not. We usually say someone is a liar if he shows this to be a consistent behavior. Is a person a hypocrite if one of his statements was hypocritical? It's so easy not to notice these things, especially when the person making the argument is not as savvy in the 'art' of debates or making an argument. I prefer giving the person the benefit of the doubt, so that *other* readers around the internet who come and watch our debate can see the arguments and be convinced by what i'm saying, and not consider me an utter jerk and move away in annoyance. And we have a lot of 'random readers', according to our traffic, way after the argument is done and gone. We went over this in the past, so I know where you stand on this, I just don't think you are aware how much this particular ridiculing attitude can shoot you in the foot. While your own "camp" will give you high-fives and snicker on how well you just pwned the person, everyone else will stop listening to you, in general, even when you make good points. There are enough people out there who think that scientists and science-minded people are obtuse jerks who don't listen and consider themselves smarter than everyone else. We don't need to get out of our way to convince them that they're right. ~mooey

Your graphs don't say that the ONLY determining factor to global warming is CO2 levels. Your question was invalid, and is still invalid. Are you coming here with a conclusion you wish to fit the data to, or do you want to discuss what scientists *actually* say, and what facts they consider, or do you want to follow the entirety of the facts and draw a conclusion? The first option, which it seems you take, does not fit with the scientific methodology. You should reconsider your strategy here. ~mooey

But there are infinite amount of equally valid propositions. The question is one of practicality; if they're equally valid (and equally invalid, seeing as neither has any form of proof to them either) -- are you really suggesting we consider them "research worthy" ? If so, we need to consider the infinite amount of the other statements that too. The difference with the aurora borealis, is that you're giving me a falsifiable situation. You falsify it. That's science. Unfalsifiable claims are inherently unscientific. ~mooey

How's that any different than saying "we might prove unicorns with lipgloss exist" statement? You'd require some form of evidence to my statement, I require the same for yours. Neither have any. Both statements are rather empty, seeing as they don't quite describe actual phenomena, but rather desired end-results.

! Moderator Note You also know better. We all know how articulate you are, iNow. You can engage a new member in a useful conversation (or choose to avoid one altogether). Whatever choice you make, retorting with personal attacks is against our rules. As you mentioned, you're not a moderator. If you think another member is in violation of the rules (especially a new member, which we tend to give benefit of the doubt for), you should use the 'report' button rather than get yourself down to a level where the staff is required to remind everyone about the rules.

superball, what iNow means, here, is that your question is unfair in itself. It's a logical fallacy that is called a "Loaded Question", to which either answer is "wrong". read more here: http://www.fallacyfi...g/loadques.html In this case above, if I answer that "I have (stopped)" I admit I beat my wife. If I answer "I haven't (stopped)" I say I am *still* beating my wife. In either case the answer is some form of me beating my wife even if I don't. The question itself assumes an answer that isn't necessarily true. Your question, "who said global warming levels only depends on co2 levels? [sic]" you're phrasing a question that has no real answer; the question is the problem - no one said it because global warming levels do NOT 'only depend on co2 level'. That's not what scientists claim. The purpose of the 'return question' was not to offend you, but to make the same point. That said, iNow, it would serve everyone well if you explain these things rather than 'beat back' with a return fallacy. This method doesn't really serve to explain the other person where (and why) you think he was wrong, it just makes him think you're being a jerk, which, granted, if he didn't know about the fallacy, it sounded like you are. Be civil guys. ~mooey

Why? What's the difference? Are you suggesting science can't account for this reason, so we should use something else? If so, I disagree.

Of course not, that's why science in itself never says never. Well.. rarely says never. The idea isn't "disprove" but rather "prove". At some point, however, the word 'almost' in "almost impossible" makes the venture irrelevant. There may well be pink unicorns with lipgloss. There's no real law that prevents them from being. Is this something that will take hours off your sleep at nights, or will cause you to go on wild chases, or waste time and money to find those emasculated unicorns? I hope not. Under most definitions that would be a waste of time. We should keep our minds open, but not as open as to let our brains fall out. I believe most things are "99.999% probably" rather than "surely". This is *great* for philosophy discussions, but it's not really helpful for actual science. You need *something* from that 0.0001% -- anything -- to really have a reason to follow up on this option. ~mooey

I'm not sure I understand the logic here. There's nothing that proves pink unicorns with lipgloss don't exist either. If you don't have some sort of initial suspicion you can base your arguments on *why* start searching for them, it seems kinda silly to, no? The scientific method is meant to untaint explanations by making them not based on opinion, but rather on fact. It doesn't matter if you believe the chupakabra exists or not, or if there is life on mars, or if aliens can be silicon-based. Your opinions are your own. If you want to pursue any question scientifically, you must base it on some form of evidence to form a hypothesis and plan how to pursue proper explanation for the phenomenon. ~mooey

matty has been suspended for 7 days for mild trolling, posting mocking posts and ignoring the rules and etiquette of the forum.