VincentRJ

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

Because you arrived at a conclusion which is at odds with virtually all climate scientists.

How do you know that virtually all scientists believe in the existential threat of human CO2 emissions? Did you read it in the media? Have you bothered to read any IPCC reports, comparing the Working Group 1 scientific summary with the Political Summary? Have you examined or read any peer-reviewed papers from the so-called contrarians or skeptics? Are you aware that most scientists don't respond to questionaires about the causes of climate changes and the degree of impact that human emissions of CO2 have, because they understand that climate is too complex and chaotic for any certainty. Do you understand that the high Consensus of 97%, or more, is based upon a minority of peer-reviewed papers where the authors expresses an opinion on the human contribution of CO2 emissions to climate change?

I could go on, but I'll leave it there.

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

In other words, if you're a materialist, it's easy to look at history and to blame organized religion for the atrocities it committed in God's name. Is it equally easy to look at the materialist worldview and see the damage caused by it? Not so much. To do that, you would have to transcend to the next stage and gain a clearer perspective of what came before. 
And while we're pointing all those fingers at the things that are not going the way they should go, or the way we wish they would go, can we see all the good that came out of each stage? Blaming alone will not make one bit of difference. Action is needed.

It's a complex issue and I'm not blaming religion for only doing harm and no good. Some of the fundamental teachings of some religions are very wise and rational. The problem is that the rulers promoting such religions, and their followers, seem to be motivated by a stronger urge than their religious belief. Obvious examples are the many wars that have taken place, and the horrible burning and torture of people, in order to protect the religion of Christianity which has a fundamental teaching that one should love thine enemy and neighbour, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I've been interested in Buddhism because it teaches at a philosophical and rational level, what the causes are of such horrible wars and bad behaviour in general. However, Buddhism as a religion, doesn't seem to have had much effect in preventing wars and conflicts, considering the awful atrocities, conflicts and disharmony that have occurred in recent decades, in Buddhist countries such as Sri Lanka, Cambodia and Myanmar.

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You didn't do enough research.

How do you know that I didn't do enough research? ????

44 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

One of the reasons why it's so difficult for you to accept different hypotheses, is because, sorry to say, you've been well indoctrinated. 

Wow! Please tell me how you think I've been indoctrinated. I'd really like to know because I'm generally opposed to doctrines in general.

For example, I initially accepted the doctrine of 'potential catastrophic climate change due to human Co2 emissions', because I have respect for the methodology of science. However, after doing my own investigation, searching the internet for the history of past changes in climate, and the history of extreme weather events, from reliable sources, it became clear that the alarm about human-caused climate change and its existential threat, was far more political than scientific.

Definition of doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.
 

6 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

...which is exactly what I already said in my last post....so why repeat it? ????

Because this issue is so fundamentally important to, not only our current well-being, but the survival of the human race. It needs to be repeated again and again. The reasons why we don't seem to be able to learn from history, needs to be given more attention. This is something that should be investigated more by the scientific disciplines, and/or discussed more in the media, world-wide.

In other words, there appears to be something in human nature that transcends any religious doctrine.

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Organized religions were paramount in developing societies away from tribal warfare into more structured entities, thus offering fertile ground for important achievements such as law and order.

......which was often enforced with horrible punishments, such as burning the law-breakers alive at the stake, or nailing them to a cross, as the Romans used to do, and organizing horrible wars which resulted in the slaughter of almost entire populations.

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

I was expecting a similar counter-argument, but it's lame, and I'm sure that you know. 

Yeah, evil exists in this existence, and so what.

When you talk about the great benefits which science brings to humankind,  you never mention the science of propaganda, the science of weapons production, the science of bombing and destroying, now suddenly you use the atrocities of war to say that "humans are not so intelligent "

Well, i have to tell you, nature is violent, with or without humans... but we have the potential to make things better, with some effort. 

"Yeah, evil exists in this existence, and so what." 

So what ??? Is it of no consequence?? I do understand that all forms of life tend to kill other forms of life, and often kill members of their own species during a competition for resources and food, and/or for the expansion of their territory. Certain species of female spiders, for example, will even eat the male spider after copulation has occurred, presumably to provide food for the developing baby spiders.

However, I find it very difficult to explain such behaviour by suggesting we were created by an Intelligent Designer. A more sensible explanation is that such conflicts are due to certain characteristics which are embedded in all forms of life, including bacteria, that is, an instinct that gives priority to the passing on of its own genes, in other words, its reproduction.

The Theory of Evolution is a far better explanation than a God or Intelligent Designer. We know that genes mutate and that such mutations can affect the ability of life-forms to survive in a particular environment. Mutations which are beneficial for survival in a particular environment, will result in greater reproduction, which is 'survival of the fittest'. After millions of generations, perhaps during a billion years, is it any wonder that a creature will very gradually morph into another creature, or species, as a result of the trillions of genetic mutations that have occurred during a few million, or a billion years?

35 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Humans are intelligently designed themselves as far as i know, thus intelligent design exists on it's own.

The current war in Ukraine doesn't seem at all intelligent to me, nor the countless bloody wars in the past, involving terrible killing and rape of huge numbers of innocent women and children.

4 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Fair enough,  my definition of God is the intelligent design, the set of rules which regulates the life of the visible ( and the invisible) in the universe .

We can study the laws of physics, but it's undeniable that they were there before the humans started studying them.

Intelligent design is what intelligent humans do. Those who have the intelligence, capability and motive can design all sorts of products, such as buildings, vehicles, TV sets, computers, planes, rockets that can transport men to the moon, and so on, and on.

I can appreciate the reason why so many people assume that there is an 'Intelligent Designer', of some type, who designed the entire universe. We humans design so many different products, using scientifically confirmed theories relating to the way we observe how nature and the universe works, therefore it's not entirely unreasonable for people to speculate that there might be some entity that created or designed us and the entire universe.

This could be described 'anthropomorphism', that is, the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object.

We should also bear in mind that so-called 'Laws of Physics' are human constructs, and therefore such laws could not have existed before humans existed. All we can say is that such 'laws' appear to correctly represent the workings of our observable environment and haven't yet been falsified. In the past, many such laws have been frequently falsified, so we can expect that at least some of the current 'Laws of Physics' will be falsified, or modified, at some point in the future.

A good example, is the current explanation of the observed behaviour of the universe by hypothesising the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which hasn't yet been detected. The current 'Laws of Physics' cannot explain such observations. However, if we fail to detect such Dark Matter after many decades of research, a modification of existing 'so-called laws of physics' could take place.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

"Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) is a hypothesis that proposes a modification of Newton's law of universal gravitation to account for observed properties of galaxies. It is an alternative to the hypothesis of dark matter in terms of explaining why galaxies do not appear to obey the currently understood laws of physics."
 

9 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Perhaps then i am right when not trusting scientists and " well educated people " when they assert the non-existence of God and deities ????

They don't assert the non-existence of God. They assert the 'lack of evidence', for the existence of God, that meets the requirements of the methodology of science. Even scientific hypotheses, such as the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, have to be based on some evidence before they can be investigated to confirm their existence, which is currently an ongoing process with regard to Dark matter and Energy.

Also, to investigate something scientifically, one needs to have a reasonably precise definition of what one is investigating, otherwise one doesn't know what the heck one is investigating. What's the precise definition of 'God'? ????

Excellent advice. The more trees the better. They're good for the environment, absorb atmospheric pollution, and look beuatiful. I look forward to revisiting Siem Reap in the future, after Covid restriction have been lifted.

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Science obviously is not the answer either.  Science provides zero guiding principles to life.  In fact, science promotes a reality which is purely mechanistic and one in which the individual is completely powerless.  He may get lucky every once in a while, though.

 

 

As Mark Twain so perceptively quipped, “What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so."  And therein lies the trouble.  Convincing people that what they thought was true is in fact not true is not going to go over well. 

 

These are interesting issues to discuss and are very relevant to our progress, security, well-being, and prosperity. However, your idea the 'Science provides zero guiding principles to life', is plain wrong. However, I agree that convincing you that you are wrong will be very difficult, because of your religious type of beliefs, and apparent lack of understanding of the basic principles of the methodology of science.

If you read about the history of science, going back as far as the ancient Greeks, you might understand that the success of modern 'science and technology' is based upon a principle of verification through repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, which should also include methods of creating experiments to falsify a particular theory. This methodology was not formulated by the ancient Greeks, but was developed slowly over centuries. Plato, for example, believed that all knowledge could be obtained through pure reasoning, and that there was no need to actually go out and measure anything.

If it's not possible to devise experiments to falsify a particular theory, because of the complexity of interacting forces, and/or the long time scales involved, then there should always be some doubt about the veracity of the theory, even if it's only a slight doubt.

There are many examples of situations in certain scientific disciplines that cannot be subjected to the required falsification process. These apply mostly to the 'soft' scientific disciplines, such as psychology, psychiatry, pharmacology, and climatology, and so on..

The 'guiding principle of science' is that all issues should be questioned, if there is the slightest doubt. Also, the available evidence and data must be taken into consideration, when questioning an issue.

The problems in the world are due to a lack of 'quality education' which teaches these fundamental principles of skepticism, enquiry, and searching for evidence, which is the 'guiding principle of science'.

I became interested in Buddhism after I came across the 'Kalama Sutta'. Are you familiar with that story? In the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha addresses a group of villagers who are skeptical about the teachings of various Gurus and Ascetics who had wandered through their village teaching various doctrines that are in conflict with each other.
The Buddha agreed that the villagers had good reason to be skeptical, and then gave the following advice.
 

"Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing,
nor upon tradition,
nor upon rumor,
nor upon what is in a scripture, 
nor upon surmise,
nor upon an axiom,
nor upon specious reasoning,
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over,
nor upon another's seeming ability (appeal to authority),
nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher."

In my view, this Sutta resonates with the 'true' modern principle of 'the methodology of science', and I can understand why this Sutta gets a lot of criticism from people who follow the Buddhist Religion. What religion would state, 'Do not go upon what is in a scripture'?

The problem today, with computer networks and iPhones providing a constant stream of conflicting opinions on all sorts of issues, is that most people don't have the ability, due to a lack of good education, to dig into the available data on the internet in order to confirm or refute, or cast doubt on a particular claim.

The current situation of potential 'Catastrophic Climate Change' due to mankind's CO2 emission, is an excellent example. Since most people, including politicians, seem incapable of understanding or questioning the details in any scientific article, they appeal to authority on the issue, and believe there is a 97%, or more, consensus on the isssue, and that the science is settled.

This general ignorance of the population at large, is of course exploited by certain scientists who have a career that is necessary to support their family, and/or gain wealth and fame. If telling the truth, as suggested by the evidence, or lack of evidence, results in a demotion or a sacking, then that's a personal problem that has to be addressed, and I suspect that most scientists working in a government-funded climate research centre understand that their careers are dependent upon maintaining a climate alarmism.

If there's a flood, or drought, or hurricane, or bush fire, that is claimed by the media to be the worst in a century and therefore caused by climate-change, driven by CO2 emissions, most people don't even have the rationality to understand if there was an even worse flood or drought 100 years ago when CO2 levels were much lower, then that implies that the current flood or drought reported in the news could be mostly natural, and that such events will not necessarilly be reduced by reducing CO2 emissions.

I could go on, but I'll leave it there.

56 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And if you were to do the same for biology you would find that most papers take no position on the theory of evolution.

If the issue being investigated is the degree of certainty that biologist have about the theory of evolution, then it would be sensible to select only biology papers that are attempting to investigate the evolutionary process. Most studies of biological issues are not about evolution.

"That's because it's settled science. There's no significant scientific opposition. Scientific research isn't being done on the theory of intelligent design."

As I've already stated, climate change is a chaotic, non-linear system which is impossible to accurately predict. The IPCC has stated this. The science is definitely not settled. The theory of Intelligent Design (of the universe) is no more than a speculative hypothesis, and is too challenging to investigate scientifically.

"If  anthropogenic climate change were still an issue, there would be significant research being published in  opposition."

There is, but it rarely gets reported in the biased media, which tends to focus on bad news, such as alarmism about rising CO2 levels.

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

The Guardian reports what scientists say on climate change, they don't make the science. If they reported that Russia was going to attack Ukraine (They did) would you also have said that was biased?

On climate issues the Guardian reports what some scientists say, and those scientists are a minority of scientists who are political activists on the issue of climate change. Whether or not Russia was going to attack Ukraine is not a scientific issue, but a political issue.

Were you not able to understand the diagram I attached to my post, showing that a very large majority of the papers that were examined in the study, showed no position?

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

  Ring up Merriam-Webster and have them add 'non-existent' to the definition of 'credible.'  They've recently edited the definitions of a few other words to accommodate certain pressure groups to help them continue to deceive.  They might oblige you.

Why would I do that when I've already tried to explain to you that it's 'Zero Credibility' that can be associated with non-existence? ????

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

 

‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans

The latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to November 2020 was conducted in two stages. First, the researchers examined a random sample of 3,000 studies, in which they found only found four papers that were sceptical that the climate crisis was caused by humans. Second, they searched the full database of 88,125 studies for keywords linked to climate scepticism such as “natural cycles” and “cosmic rays”, which yielded 28 papers, all published in minor journals.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans

Actually, it's interesting that you provide a link to both the original study and the Guardian's comment on that study.

The Guardian is clearly a 'pro-climate-alarmist' newspaper and therefore their reporting is clearly biased. If you read both articles, one a scientific study and the other a reporting of that study by journalists who appear to have no understanding of science, then you might get an insight into what's going on.

The essential point to understand is that most scientists are aware that climate change is a non-linear, chaotic system that is impossible to accurately predict. Therefore, most scientists do not respond to questionaires about the role that human CO2 emissions have on climate change, and most scientific studies on climate do not address the role that human activity has on climate.

The very high consensus of 97% or 99%, that human caused climate change is a major problem, refers to a significant minority of the papers that are selected. The majority of papers do not take a position on the issue.

The attached diagram from the study shows the real percentages. From 2,718 randomly selected papers, a majority of 1860 papers expressed no position.

26 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Got it!  Except . . .

Words may be synonymous but not identical in meaning.  Here are some synonyms for 'credible.'  Non-existent is not listed because the meaning is not close.  So no equivalency.  (You can, alternately, look up the definition for each to see the difference in meaning.)

By the evidence of your own admission that you made that erroneous equivalency it stands to reason that my assessment of "user error" is indeed correct.  I did not say 'non-existent' and my use of the word 'credible' does not infer 'non-existent.'  Do you agree?

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/credible
 

I gotta skip the rest of your post.  Outta time.

Dear me! You've got things the wrong way round. ????

I've never associated credibility with non-existence. I've associated 'zero credibility' with non-existence.
Zero credibility means there is no credibility whatsoever, of any type or degree. That which is claimed to exist, without a shred of scientific evidence supporting its existence, can rationally and sensibly be described as non-existent. If you were to claim that there is a 12th century Chinese teapot orbiting Saturn or Jupiter, then that could be described as non-existent, due to 'zero credibility'.
 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

If it can't be proven by science then it's not accepted as real.  That is science's general stance, is it not?  It's certainly the stance taken here by every disciple of science, including yourself.

No it's not. You've fallen into the 'either/or' trap. That is, something is either good or bad, hot or cold, credible or not credible at all. You seem to dismiss the obvious fact that there is a range of varying qualities and quantities.

'Zero credibility' is at the bottom of the range of degrees of credibility, which is why I interpreted your statement that 'science considers subjective reality to have zero credibility', as equivalent to 'science considers subjective reality as non-existent'. How can anything that is accepted as existing have 'zero credibility?

Science is an ongoing process and nothing is fully settled, although many issues are sufficiently settled to be of practical use in developing successful technology.

"Since you express incredulity at the preposterous idea that science would dare not bestow credibility on whatever interpretation of reality you receive via your five senses then what credibility would science bestow on the following?  One hears God's voice using the physical sense of hearing.  One sees God with their physical eyes.  One feels God's embrace.  Not sure if there have been any reports in our history of anyone claiming to smell or taste God."

There are many examples of people hearing or seeing things which exist only in the mind. An example would be the fairly common condition of Tinnitus, which is a ringing, or buzzing, or clicking in the ears and which is not based on any external source of sound. I can imagine that someone who is totally unaware of such a condition, might believe he is being surrounded and followed by swarms of Crickets or Cicadas.

Every experience has to interpreted in some way, whether automatically, unconsciously, instinctively, or through some processing by the intellect. It's the interpretation that can sometimes be given 'zero credibility', as in the example of a person interpreting his Tinnitus as the sound of crickets or cicadas, or a person interpreting a voice in his head as a communication with an 'Almighty Creator of the Universe'. Got it?

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I've never said that science denies the existence of subjective reality.  Science recognises it's existence but does not treat it as real in the same way it considers a physical object to be real.  What comes from subjective reality carries no weight with science.  Science not only grants subjective reality zero credibility but it has a great distrust of subjective reality as well.
 

Let's focus on the part of your post I've highlighted. I think the problem here is that you've lumped all types of sujective reality into one category. For me, subjective reality is what I interpret through my senses of sight, hearing, feeling, taste, smell and intellect. Are you saying that science grants zero credibility to all these interpretations? Are you saying that science grants zero credibility to my claim that I enjoy or dislike the taste of a particular food, or the sight of a particular painting, or the sound of a particular piece of music?

I understand if I express an opinion, that there is a Creator God for example, that is not supported by a shred of evidence that meets the requirements of the 'methodology of science', then a qualified scientist might claim that my opinion has zero credibility, but that my opinion still exists in my mind, and/or in written text. Is this what you mean?
 

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I guess @Tippaporn is not referring to the real science, but to the so called science which they are trying to push down our throat, so to speak.

I know already that you don't see the difference, and i don't know if you do it on purpose.

Try harder.????

You guess that Tippaporn is not referring to 'real' science?? Why are you guessing?? I'll give you a hint. You're guessing because Tippaporn is not clear in his use of language, which causes confusion. A fundamental requirement of all science is precision of terminology and the meaning of words.

If one is referring in one's post to 'scientific propaganda', or 'fake science' that is not based on data and experimental evidence, then one should make that clear and not just use the general word 'science'.

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Science attaches zero credibility to subjective reality and precisely for the reasons you give.  The moment they accept subjective reality as real is the point at which they become synonymous with religion.
 

Another excellent example of great confusion. Well done!  ????

Of course science accepts the existence of subjective reality. Every individual creature on this planet is different to some degree, even if they are of the same species. Even 'so-called' identical twins are genetically different to some degree, because of differences in the genetic mutations that occur during their development in the womb. If the twins lead separate lives after they are born, their differences will increase as a result of their different lifestyles and experiences.

Science understands this quite well, but not perfectly, of course. Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience are some of the scientific disciplines that address these subjective realities.  There are trillions of examples of subjective reality. I'll just highlight a few obvious ones.

Some people enjoy the taste of a particular food, and other people find the taste of the same food disgusting. Some people find snakes in general very attractive and quite fascinating, yet other people find them horrifying. Some people enjoy classical music, and others find it boring.

In the medical industry it's well known that prescribed drugs do not always have the same effect on all indiviuals who are treated, because of differences in their genome, biological chemistry, diet and lifestyle, and many other factors. Also, in the dietary industry it is observed that a particular diet does not work or have the same effect on all individuals, for reason that can be examined by 'science'.

However, there are certain principles that apply to all individuals, with no exception. For example, if anyone ceases to eat or drink any food, they must lose weight, and the longer they cease eating, the more weight they will lose. There are no exceptions. There may be differences in the rate of weight loss, due to the amount of physical activity the fasting people engage in, but even if someone lies on a couch all day watching TV, they will still lose weight because the body needs energy to survive, and that energy must come from somewhere. The basic law of the 'Conservation of Energy' applies here.

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I disagree with your evaluation of what I refer to as a scientific fairy tale.  It's not disagreement, really, as I believe you misunderstand the term as I use it.  Evolution, as it is presently understood and defined, is an example of a scientific fairy tale.  It is no more true than the Bible's story of the world being created in literally 7 days.  So the term in the sense that I mean it is not akin to a false interpretation of 'real' science.
 

Believing that the theory of Evolution is no more true than the Bible's story of the world being created in literally 7 days, is completely farcical and shows you have no respect for, or understanding of, the methodology of science.

"BTW, I am not scientifically illiterate.  I took biology, chemistry and physics classes in high school."

I don't wish to insult you, but your above comment on Evolution would imply that you must either have come close to the bottom of the class in those subjects or had a very poor teacher. ????

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Unfortunately, for those who have gone all in on their faith in the omnipotence of science now have the additional problem these days of sorting out "true" science from "false" science.   As an example, you have scientists claiming a regimen including Ivermectin is a valid and successful remedy against Covid-19 and then you have other scientists declaring the exact opposite, that it's harmful.  You have scientists claiming that climate change is real and other scientists claiming climate change is bunk.  Apparently even within their own ranks they're having an intolerable difficulty agreeing on what reality is.

The situation is deliciously burlesque in my humble opinion.

It's clear that there is great confusion about 'real' science (that is the 'methodology' of science) and the interpretation and reporting of scientific issues by people, such as journalists, politicians, and much of the population,  who appear to have little understanding of the true 'methodology of science'.

The climate-change issue is an excellent example of this confusion which is exploited by certain scientists who are political activists, and/or who see the opportunity to increase their wealth and fame by exploiting a fabricated alarm.

The concept of a 'scientific fairy tale' is no more than a false interpretation of the 'real' science by the scientifically illiterate.

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Good morning, Skeptic 7.

A classic response from a staunch representative of the contingent of folks who ridicule religious fairy tales whilst devoutly subscribing to scientific fairy tales with utmost veneration.  LOL

Interesting concept, 'a scientific fairy tale'. ????

Perhaps you mean, 'a scientific hypothesis' which is a speculative theory based upon some degree of evidence, but not yet confirmed.

There are certain very basic principles about the economy which many people do not seem to understand. The success and prosperity of any economy is mainly dependent on two basic factors. 
(1) The cost of energy. 
(2) The way we use that energy.

Because every activity in a modern economy is dependent on supplies of energy, if energy prices increase, then the standard of living must fall, unless the energy is used more efficiently in order to compensate for that increased cost.

If any business increase the wages of its employees whilst energy prices are rising, then it must use that energy more efficiently in order to maintain profits. If profits fall, then the company's share value falls, shareholders become less wealthy, and if the company has huge debts to repay, it might become bankrupt, which means all employees lose their job.

We have a similar problem in Australia with the coming elections. Wages have remained constant for many years. However,  inflation and rising house prices are a major concern, and many people are demanding wage rises. These people don't seem to understand that wage levels are a major part of the cost of production. If wage levels rise without a corresponding increase in efficiency, then either inflation will rise and goods will become more expensive, or government debt must rise in order to subsidise the increased business costs.