Where my love of science began
administrators

0_1498382543296_science.jpg

As the jesuits would say, “Give me the child until they are 5, and I will give you the man”.
Dogmatic to the bone.

More Science Doggerel

Don’t be indognant.

administrators

@Termite said in Where my love of science began:

As the jesuits would say, “Give me the child until they are 5, and I will give you the man”.
Dogmatic to the bone.

it is curious that you equate science to religious indoctrination. As for being dogmatic, it depends on which definition you are referring too. If it is used as a synonym of certainty, then yes, I am absolutely certain that science is the only way we can understand the world around us and it is the thing that has made just about everything in the modern world possible.

However, if it is used in the religious sense of the word, then no because religion relies on faith and not evidence. A rational discussion where evidence is presented which is contrary to my beliefs will change my mind. See this flowchart.

0_1498474920180_A-Flowchart-to-Help-You-Determine-if-Yoursquore-Having-a-Rational-Discussion.jpg

@dog said in Where my love of science began:

indoctrination

Shouldn’t that be indogtrination? :eyes:

administrators

Thanks for the correction. May Dog be with you.

A rational discussion where evidence is presented which is contrary to my beliefs will change my mind.

Apart from not really giving a fuck about your beliefs, why would I want to change your mind?

Some wise words to consider if one is not to make a fool of oneself when one is deriding another person’s opinion because it is not “backed by peer reviewed science”.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident.” ------- Arthur Schopenhauer

“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance at being correct.” ----- Niels Bohr, Nobel Laureate & Quantum Physics Pioneer

“Without the doubt, question, and challenge of Science, Scientific achievement would have stagnated and died thousands of years ago.” ------- Bill Flannery, one who dares to doubt.

@Termite said in Where my love of science began:

Some wise words to consider if one is not to make a fool of oneself when one is deriding another person’s opinion because it is not “backed by peer reviewed science”.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident.” ------- Arthur Schopenhauer

“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance at being correct.” ----- Niels Bohr, Nobel Laureate & Quantum Physics Pioneer

“Without the doubt, question, and challenge of Science, Scientific achievement would have stagnated and died thousands of years ago.” ------- Bill Flannery, one who dares to doubt. Some are too scared.

If proponents of any view of climate change wish to hear other views, the ABC Science Show broadcast last Saturday should be compulsory listening. You’ll hear respected scientists from several sides putting their views, and rebuttals. (You’ll also hear Malcolm Roberts, the loony tunes Senator, but he’s only there as an example of idiocy.)

Link to the podcast is here.
link text

Unfortunately climate change is the least of our worries, micro plastics will kill us all before it gets too hot to live on earth. It’s already in the food chain and there are millions of unrecoverable tonnes of the stuff slowly being ground to fine particles that will poison us all.
You say you don’t eat sea food, so it won’t affect you? Too bad that a lot of livestock and chicken feed has quantities of fish meal in it.
How’s that for a dose of doom and gloom.

Termite, I can guarantee that 99.9% of people I hear expressing ‘doubt’ about a scientific theory neither do their own research (googling is not research) nor contribute to the ‘debate’ in any way shape or form other than with hot air. That includes every single politician and probably the majority of others, including those here.

If anyone holds doubts about something, like anthropomorphic climate change, arguing about it on a forum is not going to achieve anything at all. They need to get their arses up to the Arctic circle and drill some ice holes.

There is a very small group of people whose doubt/scepticism makes a positive contribution to a field. The rest of us are just shooting the breeze. Being a random guy on the internet expressing doubts or scepticism about a commonly-held belief does not make one a maverick.

The problem with it is that there are many self-styled gurus out there who espouse all kinds of bullshit with no basis and enough people believe in them for it to become detrimental to society. Like anti-vax.

I’m not saying one shouldn’t hold an opinion, but if one’s opinion is that there is doubt about the science, but that’s all one has, then one can expect to be challenged to provide the proof for any assertions one makes. And yes indeed derided.

administrators

Yes, being skeptical about science is fine, but you have to accept evidence. Evidence is obtained from research. Evidence is checked for accuracy and checked again to make sure.

If the researchers into autistic children in main stream schools found that that was detrimental to the other students, then I would have agreed with Pauline Hanson but it didn’t so I don’t.

Having opinions about things that you don’t understand is going to be problematic and open you up to criticism. People who don’t believe in anthropomorphic climate change just don’t understand it.

administrators

@Termite said in Where my love of science began:

Unfortunately climate change is the least of our worries, micro plastics will kill us all before it gets too hot to live on earth. It’s already in the food chain and there are millions of unrecoverable tonnes of the stuff slowly being ground to fine particles that will poison us all.
You say you don’t eat sea food, so it won’t affect you? Too bad that a lot of livestock and chicken feed has quantities of fish meal in it.
How’s that for a dose of doom and gloom.

Just because we feed fish by products to chickens doesn’t mean there isn’t alternatives.

However, there are 1.5 to 2 billion people who rely on the sea as their primary source of protein. When the ocean ecosystem collapses, it will be sad for them.

The effects of climate change will far out weigh the effects of plastic. If you are interested in learning, have a look at this article by NASA about the effects of a 2 degree warming. We are already nearly at 1.5 degrees warming.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degree-temperature-rise-is-a-big-deal/

administrators

0_1498968897026_skepticism.jpg

http://www.theblokeyshed.com/assets/uploads/files/1498382544557-science.jpg

Those with truly inquiring minds will, of course, have checked those equations to see if they are correct.

FWIW, they seem to be.

The key words being Credible Evidence, and the definition thereof.

administrators

The most rigor applied to any evidence is with the Scientific Method.

0_1499076099697_The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg.png

This isn’t to say it is perfect, nothing is but if there is a body of evidence, not just an individual study, then to the best of human ability, it is correct.

@Termite What is your definition of credible evidence?

Looks like your connection to The Blokey Shed was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.