When Did You Stop Learning?

[GeniusIsDisruptive]

Or have you not?

 

Quite a few people in this forum have lectured me on "learning" here, ostensibly from them. Are they beyond learning?

 

There is a widespread presumption on the Left that they are smarter than the "other" side, and the clear inference is always because they are smarter, they are right in whatever they say or opine. What is "smart"? The Unabomber is a very learned man, a former mathematics professor at Berkeley. How smart is he? I will leave that to each of you to ponder.

 

It seems to me that all of us are smarter than any of us, and that we can learn from the unlikeliest of sources, sometimes even young children.

 

There is great joy in learning, and as well in expressing gratitude and entertaining a good sense of humor, of which I have seen little anywhere in this forum. Self-deprecation comes to mind.

Toward that end, I will relate a story of a brief conversation I had with a professor at Dartmouth. His published paper was on the internet, and I downloaded and read it. It was interesting and informative, but in his summary, he errantly used exactly the opposite word he intended, as was clear from the context.

 

I phoned him and left a message on his answering machine. Within an hour, he called me back and said, "I wrote that paper fifteen years ago and you are the first one to bring that to my attention. Thank you!"

 

"You're welcome, professor, but with all due respect, why is it there is so little correlation between common sense and education"?

 

Without hesitation, the good professor replied, "Tell me about it!"

 

What is more desperately needed in this forum is a willingness to consider other points of view, in a kind and good-humored, even self-deprecating perspective.

 

Tell me about it.

[dimreepr]

Or have you not?

 

Quite a few people in this forum have lectured me on "learning" here, ostensibly from them. Are they beyond learning?

 

They didn't mean it as a lecture, just some advice, from members much smarter than you or I and whom (did I get that right?) mostly frequent a forum such as this, in order to guide "us" to the realisation that no-one is beyond learning; even you...

Edited July 12, 2017 by dimreepr

[Arete]

What is more desperately needed in this forum is a willingness to consider other points of view, in a kind and good-humored, even self-deprecating perspective.

 

My irony detector just broke.

[dimreepr]

 

My irony detector just broke.

 

May I suggest you get the auto calibrate model 'LmaO II', saves money in the long run.

[GeniusIsDisruptive]

 

They didn't mean it as a lecture, just some advice, from members much smarter than you or I and whom (did I get that right?) mostly frequent a forum such as this, in order to guide "us" to the realisation that no-one is beyond learning; even you...

 

Of course they didn't mean it as a lecture. They MEANT it as a condescending reprimand, in the same vein you presented "even you..."

 

The pretense of the Left is that they are smarter and therefore correct. That does not follow. Nevertheless, any deviation from their "correct" narrative is promptly knocked down, as if by an Antifa gang.

[dimreepr]

 

Of course they didn't mean it as a lecture. They MEANT it as a condescending reprimand, in the same vein you presented "even you..."

 

Nope, you've got that arse backwards, when I said "you" I mean all of you, even the time you means me.

[Phi for All]

I think one of the most willfully ignorance stances we see today are people who want to lump whole groups of people they don't like into categories, like "the Left", so they can dismiss them wholesale. Most of it is stupid assumptions about what "conservative" and "liberal" really mean. When I can easily argue that listening to experts about climate change is a good, conservative tactic, does that make me conservative? I can also point to massive studies that show our approach to crime creates more criminals, so why is my stance considered liberal?

 

These labels are emotionally charged. If you're interested in a more dispassionate, reasoned point of view that can be trusted, I would suggest you give them up.

[swansont]

 

Of course they didn't mean it as a lecture. They MEANT it as a condescending reprimand, in the same vein you presented "even you..."

 

The pretense of the Left is that they are smarter and therefore correct. That does not follow. Nevertheless, any deviation from their "correct" narrative is promptly knocked down, as if by an Antifa gang.

 

 

It is a dangerous thing to presume that you know the motivations of others. Most of the time that I see people try, they fail miserably. I could guess at your motivations for being here, but I won't. I don't think it matters much.

 

You have thus far given ZERO indication that you are interested in being corrected and engaging in civil discourse. It seems that every time someone attempts to, you get defensive and berate them or go off on some tangent. All distractions from the subject being discussed. Did it ever occur to you that an argument gets "knocked down" because it's wrong? That requires no political motivation.

 

Ah, but if you have the false notion of motivation! It's easy to ignore the arguments if you think "the only reason you disagree is because of your ideology" or something similar. And that fits the pattern they you are showing.

[Phi for All]

Ah, but if you have the false notion of motivation! It's easy to ignore the arguments if you think "the only reason you disagree is because of your ideology" or something similar. And that fits the pattern they you are showing.

 

Perhaps a fear of being lumped together with the undesirable parts of a similar ideology? I have a lot of Republican friends who are happy I don't assume they share all the fake president's traits and sentiments.

[dimreepr]

 

Perhaps a fear of being lumped together with the undesirable parts of a similar ideology? I have a lot of Republican friends who are happy I don't assume they share all the fake president's traits and sentiments.

 

Fear is the real "opiate of the masses".

[Ten oz]

Or have you not?

 

Quite a few people in this forum have lectured me on "learning" here, ostensibly from them. Are they beyond learning?

 

1 - There is a widespread presumption on the Left that they are smarter than the "other" side, and the clear inference is always because they are smarter, they are right in whatever they say or opine. What is "smart"? The Unabomber is a very learned man, a former mathematics professor at Berkeley. How smart is he? I will leave that to each of you to ponder.

 

It seems to me that all of us are smarter than any of us, and that we can learn from the unlikeliest of sources, sometimes even young children.

 

There is great joy in learning, and as well in expressing gratitude and entertaining a good sense of humor, of which I have seen little anywhere in this forum. Self-deprecation comes to mind.

 

Toward that end, I will relate a story of a brief conversation I had with a professor at Dartmouth. His published paper was on the internet, and I downloaded and read it. It was interesting and informative, but in his summary, he errantly used exactly the opposite word he intended, as was clear from the context.

 

I phoned him and left a message on his answering machine. Within an hour, he called me back and said, "I wrote that paper fifteen years ago and you are the first one to bring that to my attention. Thank you!"

 

"You're welcome, professor, but with all due respect, why is it there is so little correlation between common sense and education"?

 

Without hesitation, the good professor replied, "Tell me about it!"

 

2 - What is more desperately needed in this forum is a willingness to consider other points of view, in a kind and good-humored, even self-deprecating perspective.

 

Tell me about it.Seems like a redundant charge considering bothsides of a debate typically treat their position as superior.

1 - Isn't this a redundant charge considering bothsides of any debate frame their positions as superior?

 

2 - This is a science forum and not a "point of view" forum. Science does not require the caveat of good humor or an argeeable disposition. Science seeks to make things clear not fuzzy or gray.

I think one of the most willfully ignorance stances we see today are people who want to lump whole groups of people they don't like into categories, like "the Left", so they can dismiss them wholesale. Most of it is stupid assumptions about what "conservative" and "liberal" really mean. When I can easily argue that listening to experts about climate change is a good, conservative tactic, does that make me conservative? I can also point to massive studies that show our approach to crime creates more criminals, so why is my stance considered liberal?

 

These labels are emotionally charged. If you're interested in a more dispassionate, reasoned point of view that can be trusted, I would suggest you give them up.

Why learn and know things when one can just feel things and ask others to respect that the same?

[Strange]

 

Of course they didn't mean it as a lecture. They MEANT it as a condescending reprimand, in the same vein you presented "even you..."

 

The pretense of the Left is that they are smarter and therefore correct. That does not follow. Nevertheless, any deviation from their "correct" narrative is promptly knocked down, as if by an Antifa gang.

What on Earth does any of this have to do with "the Left"? This is a science forum. In some senses, science is (potentially) always wrong. That is why everything that is thought to be "correct" is constantly retested.

[rangerx]

What on Earth does any of this have to do with "the Left"?

 

Because the OP is a anti-intellectually conservative and little else.

[Phi for All]

Because the OP is a anti-intellectually conservative and little else.

 

And now you've stopped learning anything else about him because you can sum him up in a six word description. This isn't a good way to look at anybody.

 

He may not be any of those things. It may be as simple as him having worked for the fossil fuel industry all his life, or maybe he was persecuted for his religion/lack thereof, or had to work for a college kid half his age.

 

He may have voted for Jerry Brown, and hopes bellbottom jeans come back, you just don't know.

[rangerx]

 

And now you've stopped learning anything else about him because you can sum him up in a six word description. This isn't a good way to look at anybody.

 

He may not be any of those things. It may be as simple as him having worked for the fossil fuel industry all his life, or maybe he was persecuted for his religion/lack thereof, or had to work for a college kid half his age.

 

He may have voted for Jerry Brown, and hopes bellbottom jeans come back, you just don't know.

 

Perhaps, but a cursory glance at other threads leaves the impression they're just trolling. Every post is radically more dismissive than the consideration granted them by others.

[Phi for All]

Perhaps, but a cursory glance at other threads leaves the impression they're just trolling. Every post is radically more dismissive than the consideration granted them by others.

 

It's an assumption, isn't it? Whatever your POV, the people "on the other side" of the argument (from your POV) are going to be dead set against it. I think it's partly semantics. The way an issue is spun plays a big part.

 

When the word "welfare" pops up, one side thinks about the widowed mothers it will help and the other side thinks of the lazy loafers it will enable. Both assume their POVs are opposite, but in reality, both want to help the widowed mothers and neither want to enable the lazy loafers. But they won't learn this about each other because, with issues like these, too many people have stopped learning.

[Ten oz]

 

It's an assumption, isn't it? Whatever your POV, the people "on the other side" of the argument (from your POV) are going to be dead set against it. I think it's partly semantics. The way an issue is spun plays a big part.

 

When the word "welfare" pops up, one side thinks about the widowed mothers it will help and the other side thinks of the lazy loafers it will enable. Both assume their POVs are opposite, but in reality, both want to help the widowed mothers and neither want to enable the lazy loafers. But they won't learn this about each other because, with issues like these, too many people have stopped learning.

While I agree with every word of your post I think it fails to reply in context to rangerx's last post. I believe, could be wrong, rangerx is pointing the OP's position has been treated with more respect than they are providing others and perhap it is all just a bit of partisan trolling.

[rangerx]

While I agree with every word of your post I think it fails to reply in context to rangerx's last post. I believe, could be wrong, rangerx is pointing the OP's position has been treated with more respect than they are providing others and perhap it is all just a bit of partisan trolling.

 

Yes. They respond to well reasoned responses with hyper partisan rhetoric and abusive comments at every turn.

 

Evidence enough of trolling, but dismissed as though I or we have stopped learning. Ironically, that's broadly more dismissive than any assumption I've drawn.

[beecee]

In answer to the question in the OP, no one ever stops learning, irrespective of the emotional, and false indignation that some like to display when their own thoughts/opinions are critically reviewed and inevitable shown to be wanting, by other learned people.

 

 

 

The pretense of the Left is that they are smarter and therefore correct. That does not follow. Nevertheless, any deviation from their "correct" narrative is promptly knocked down, as if by an Antifa gang.

 

 

Plain emotional dismissive, agenda driven crap.

 

 

These labels are emotionally charged. If you're interested in a more dispassionate, reasoned point of view that can be trusted, I would suggest you give them up.

 

Yes.

 

 

What on Earth does any of this have to do with "the Left"? This is a science forum. In some senses, science is (potentially) always wrong. That is why everything that is thought to be "correct" is constantly retested.

 

Many people see science and obviously scientists as evil in attempting to explain reasonably logically, how the universe came to be, how life arose and how we evolved. That displaces there own agenda of ID as it most certainly contains no science.

 

 

 

Perhaps, but a cursory glance at other threads leaves the impression they're just trolling. Every post is radically more dismissive than the consideration granted them by others.

 

 

Bingo! An astute observation!

Edited July 13, 2017 by beecee

[GeniusIsDisruptive]

What on Earth does any of this have to do with "the Left"? This is a science forum. In some senses, science is (potentially) always wrong. That is why everything that is thought to be "correct" is constantly retested.

 

Oh please. PLEASE!

Challenge evolution, or "climate change (recently called global warming, but reformulated when warming paused for 17 years), and see how you are attacked by the Leftist elite.

Challenge atheist pretensions and suffer their condescending wrath. There is no "constant retesting." Science has been deeply politicized, by the godless Left. When Darwinian evolution was on the wane, the Russian communists revived it as a great boon to their atheist state control. No less an authority than Stephen J. Gould said as much.

 

"Atheism is an essential part of communism," said Lenin. (I won't bother to verify if this is his exact quote, but it is in perfect context.)

 

Because the OP is a (sic) anti-intellectually (sic) conservative and little else.

 

 

Zounds! I have been outed by rangerx. He clearly knows that conservatives are ALL *anti-intellectual* ... and little else.

 

Thank you, rangerx. I have learned SO MUCH from you in just your one sentence.

 

Please join beecee on my Ignore List.

[Sicarii]

 

Oh please. PLEASE!

Challenge evolution, or "climate change (recently called global warming, but reformulated when warming paused for 17 years), and see how you are attacked by the Leftist elite.

Challenge atheist pretensions and suffer their condescending wrath. There is no "constant retesting." Science has been deeply politicized, by the godless Left. When Darwinian evolution was on the wane, the Russian communists revived it as a great boon to their atheist state control. No less an authority than Stephen J. Gould said as much.

 

"Atheism is an essential part of communism," said Lenin. (I won't bother to verify if this is his exact quote, but it is in perfect context.)

 

"warming paused for 17 years": https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-pause.htm

 

Content of this thread reminded me of the content of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI.

 

You've challenged climate change on this forum, and you were not attacked. You'd be hard-pressed to produce evidence of these "attacks". This is science, not politics. In politics you can argue whether raising taxes or lowering them is better for the economy, and both positions can be equally right, given the right conditions. In science, the only position that is right is that which is supported by data. As you have been shown time and again, the data leans heavily towards anthropogenic causes of climate change, and that data has been reproduced by 97% or more of the scientists, along various disciplines, while looking at the subject from different angles. If you are easily offended that people are calling out your wrong views on this subject, views that go against mainstream scientific consensus, then perhaps you should not be debating. We must always bear witness to the truth, as Jesus said, and that's exactly what people are doing here. Why are you going against the word of Jesus, since you're claiming to be godfull and all?

 

The most important "value" of science is skepticism; it is part of the scientific method. That is why reproduction of data is so important, and why we do not give credence to random people claiming to be scientists and publishing results in obscure journals.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Sicarii

[beecee]

 

Oh please. PLEASE!

Challenge evolution, or "climate change (recently called global warming, but reformulated when warming paused for 17 years), and see how you are attacked by the Leftist elite.

Challenge atheist pretensions and suffer their condescending wrath. There is no "constant retesting." Science has been deeply politicized, by the godless Left. When Darwinian evolution was on the wane, the Russian communists revived it as a great boon to their atheist state control. No less an authority than Stephen J. Gould said as much.

 

"Atheism is an essential part of communism," said Lenin. (I won't bother to verify if this is his exact quote, but it is in perfect context.)

 

 

Zounds! I have been outed by rangerx. He clearly knows that conservatives are ALL *anti-intellectual* ... and little else.

 

Thank you, rangerx. I have learned SO MUCH from you in just your one sentence.

 

Please join beecee on my Ignore List.

Ignore list? I'm flattered. All any member or guest need to do is check any of your posts, and the delusions of grandeur within, the irony of your generally false unsupported claims, the hypocrisy of those same claims, the strong smell of false indignation whenever some one takes you to task, the general insults to the forum as a whole and the members, science, scientists, and what are we really left with? In my opinion, a god bothering fanatic, obsessed with the fact that his deity of choice has been pushed into near oblivion. The WRATH of Khan is upon us!

Edited July 13, 2017 by beecee

[GeniusIsDisruptive]

 

In science, the only position that is right is that which is supported by data. As you have been shown time and again, the data leans heavily towards anthropogenic causes of climate change, and that data has been reproduced by 97% or more of the scientists, along various disciplines, while looking at the subject from different angles.

 

As YOU have been shown time and again, the "data" and the graphs and the arguments have been terribly skewed and biased and censored.

No, they do NOT "look at the subject from different angles." Those "deniers" are ostracized, denied tenure, denied grants and promotions.

That has been the case in "deniers" of Darwinian evolution, and it continues apace in this latest fraud.

 

 

If you are easily offended that people are calling out your wrong views on this subject, views that go against mainstream scientific consensus, then perhaps you should not be debating.

"Easily offended" is YOUR convenient rhetoric. I have been repeatedly misquoted, misconstrued, called ignorant, and lectured to interminably by such as you, always cock-sure of themselves and insistent on telling ME to tow the P.C. line. This isn't "debate." It is intolerance. It is rudeness. This group couldn't even solve a laughably simple riddle, and when I pointed out the lesson, the moral in that fact, the group went absolutely ballistic. NOBODY said, "Dang, that's a good one. You got us. We screwed up."

 

Because in your world here, you groupies NEVER screw up. You're ALWAYS right, and you misquote and misconstrue to make it so.

 

We must always bear witness to the truth, as Jesus said, and that's exactly what people are doing here. Why are you going against the word of Jesus, since you're claiming to be godfull and all?

How many examples must I provide of your collective FAILURES to "bear witness to the truth"? How many!!! You misquote me. That's reprehensible. Collectively you are unkind, ungracious even when I show you your errors. You refute the truth again and again. Your friend "Manticore," ridiculed my forum name,"GeniusIsDisruptive," stating I am anything BUT a genius. For the record, I have not claimed to be, but that has also escaped Manticore."

When I turned his pettiness on him, stating that according to HIS little game, this is NOT a "science" forum and he is NOT a "Man".

Oh my, but Man(sic)ticore called THAT "childish." His attack was just clever. My identical turnabout on him, hoisting him with his own petard - "childish."

Is this the "truth" all of you "bear witness to"? Tell me.

The most important "value" of science is skepticism; it is part of the scientific method. That is why reproduction of data is so important, and why we do not give credence to random people claiming to be scientists and publishing results in obscure journals.

 

Don't YOU lecture ME on skepticism or what is or is not "the scientific method."

The subject of THIS THREAD is "When did you stop learning?"

 

It's not any "obscure journal" and I have not cited one. I have not published in one and nowhere have I "claimed to be a scientist." But you enjoy making your inane pronouncements and attaching them to me, to make yourself look so very wise.

 

And the crowd chose Barabbas the thief to be set free. A popularity contest, lost by the very One you cited so arrogantly, so injudiciously.

[Mordred]

I just saw this thread, if someone finds a flaw in anything I post. I welcome the opportunity to learn.

 

What I do not do is change my understanding or views based on assertions without strong supportive material or math related to the topic.

 

I never stop learning, most of our senior forum members do not stop learning either. If someone provides a well thought out post on a topic that contradicts the norm. Many of us will in fact support such a well thought out effort.

 

Unfortunately that is too uncommon, far too often we get " look what I think, even though I can't back it up".

 

For myself, I am confident those familiar with my posts that many of our members have learned from them. However I take a considerable effort in formulating any posts I make and usually back them up with articles etc so no one has to take my word on anything.

 

(over the years on numerous forums, I've learned that its a good policy to follow)

Edited July 13, 2017 by Mordred

[beecee]

That has been the case in "deniers" of Darwinian evolution, and it continues apace in this latest fraud.

Are you really serious?? I mean you can go on claiming and/or deniering evolution till the cows come home, but really all you are doing is pushing shit uphill: try it

Evolution is as near fact as any theory can be, and neither you nor anyone else have even come close to discrediting it with evidence....all talk my man, nothing more, nothing less.....

 

 

 

Don't YOU lecture ME on skepticism or what is or is not "the scientific method." The subject of THIS THREAD is "When did you stop learning?"

 

I actually believe he and most others, including me are just trying to help you from making yourself look less then scientific.

 

 

I have not published in one and nowhere have I "claimed to be a scientist." But you enjoy making your inane pronouncements and attaching them to me, to make yourself look so very wise.

 

Hmmm, please correct me if I am wrong, but I do remember you claiming to be a chemist.....am I wrong? I mean I am happy to be wrong, as your posts certainly reflect that you do not have any scientific credentials of any colour..