You Must Not ‘Do Your Own Research’ When It Comes To Science

“Research both sides and make up your own mind.” It’s simple, straightforward, common sense advice. And when it comes to issues like vaccinations, climate change, and the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, it can be dangerous, destructive, and even deadly. The techniques that most of us use to navigate most of our decisions in life — gathering information, evaluating it based on what we know, and choosing a course of action — can lead to spectacular failures when it comes to a scientific matter.

The reason is simple: most of us, even those of us who are scientists ourselves, lack the relevant scientific expertise needed to adequately evaluate that research on our own. In our own fields, we are aware of the full suite of data, of how those puzzle pieces fit together, and what the frontiers of our knowledge is. When laypersons espouse opinions on those matters, it’s immediately clear to us where the gaps in their understanding are and where they’ve misled themselves in their reasoning. When they take up the arguments of a contrarian scientist, we recognize what they’re overlooking, misinterpreting, or omitting. Unless we start valuing the actual expertise that legitimate experts have spent lifetimes developing, “doing our own research” could lead to immeasurable, unnecessary suffering.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-must-not-do-your-own-research-when-it-comes-to-science/?fbclid=IwAR1s0wtnTB9ooKflNKa9VMMwhGgDqZ4-d7dLA3UoK8lYa1ISKIgUNE6PMB0&sh=36d0d188535e

No-one's told Tommy this information.

Andy wrote:No-one's told Tommy this information.

That's creative writing, not scientific research.  

Seriously, when I see how lay people use (or misuse) complex subjects, such as in quantitative methodology, I have to reverse engineer their thought processes in order to understand what they are saying going forward. So often you hear me say: I had to reconstruct what you are saying in order to respond...I mean just what Korban is saying.

Most of the time they are simply in error. But sometimes they are saying something right, but using incorrect exoressions.

While it can be interesting and thought provoking and somewhat informative to use the internet to research subjects on the internet, being a "google" expert is not a replacement for Academic study And years of research and experience.

Who among us would have a operation to remove a tumor or have other major surgery from somebody that only has a first aid certificate,who among us would be happy being a passenger in a plane with a pilot who has "played a lot of flight simulators" or looked up how to do these things on google

I have flown all over the world landed at many major air ports in aircraft from f16s to jumbo jets i have flown the space shuttle and space walked On the ISS ,but i know Anybody who would fly with me in a real aircraft would be a lunatic

Experts are experts for a reason

Scientists don't unanimously agree about a whole range of topics... There are a range of OPINIONS... and open to question and scrutiny.

Original Quill wrote:

Andy wrote:No-one's told Tommy this information.

That's creative writing, not scientific research.  
.

As you know Quill "Fact" in a scientific context is a generally accepted reality (but still open to scientific inquiry, as opposed to an absolute truth, which is not, and hence not a part of science). Hypotheses and theories are generally based on objective inferences, unlike opinions, which are generally based on subjective influences.So you cant expect the google expert to know the difference

Korben wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's creative writing, not scientific research.
.

As you know Quill "Fact" in a scientific context is a generally accepted reality (but still open to scientific inquiry, as opposed to an absolute truth, which is not, and hence not a part of science). Hypotheses and theories are generally based on objective inferences, unlike opinions, which are generally based on subjective influences.So you cant expect the google expert to know the difference

You are talking about the corrigibility of science. Science involves operationalization of variables, testing and conclusions--which, again, are subject to inevitable interrogation (re-tests or new-tests). We can't do testing on-line—your example of flying a plane—so we must limit ourselves to discussion, or those parts of science that involve images of fact and logic.

Most of what we do on-line is theorize; google gives us good leads, and enhances our awareness. Call it basic reading and educating yourself of the subject. Some of it good, some of it bad--we won't know until we get to the testing part. But I think the theory part of science is valuable first step. At least we gain familiarity with the subject.

Certain people just make up shit. Obviously, religion is one such area. People fantasize about some bearded old man in the sky, who is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. They've never met the guy, nor can they empirically encounter him (or her). But they remain steadfast.

Then, there are those who similarly personify Nature--not a god, but Nature. Homosexuality is contrary to Nature, the claim. They don't know why, it's just...well, Nature.

God(s) and Nature are two such images that I call metaphysical...they are beyond the physical, testable realm. Another word for this is fantasy...images constructed in the mind, or imagination, without ability to test.

I’m only half-kidding when I refer to ‘creative writing’, which in academia is learning how to write novels. For, pure writing is pure fantasy…only, unlike the metaphysical, which is only untestable, it is acknowledged as pure fiction from the start.

But some people are incapable of being corrected Quill or even admitting the are wrong or have misunderstood in some way ,they keep repeating the same old mantras regardless of expert testimony,or new up to date evidence  they tend to cling on to any information that seems to support there views.

flat eathers are a classic example of this, along with climate change deniers and the people who claim Homosexuality is "against nature" when in fact "Homosexuality" exists in other species as well, these objections are almost always based on religious bias or ignorance.

Is it ok dispute expert conclusions, yes  of course it is that is the very basis of scientific inquiry, but that dispute must be peer reviewed and the conclusions repeatable.

cherry picking only the facts that fit your conclusions is dishonest ignoring the well established facts as currently understood is dishonest.

!00% of actual climate scientist who work and have studied this field in many cases for a Life time have far more credibility than some lay person who has scoured the internet for information that seems to support there views ,citing the conclusions of a "climate economist" Vs a "climate Scientist" is nether helpful to any debate they are two completely different disciplines

You are a lawyer i have had a passing interest in Law but i would not presume to contradict you in these matters ,in fact you have in the past put me straight on a couple of things i would ask questions sure But i would take your expert advice regardless of what i read on the internet ,that is what you are trained in You are a expert,i am not

As i have said before The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful.

But opinions are like arse holes everybody has one (including me ),But you are only entitled to what you can prove

opinion
plural noun: opinions

1.
a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Korben wrote:But some people are incapable of being corrected Quill or even admitting the are wrong or have misunderstood in some way ,they keep repeating the same old mantras regardless of expert testimony,or new up to date evidence they tend to cling on to any information that seems to support there views.

Those people are not in the same pursuit as the rest of us. They are not looking for truth, but adversity and role playing. Actually, my post doesn't draw on my skills as an attorney, but what I learned & taught as an RA at Berkeley: research methods and the theory of logical positivism.

Lawyering is much less the pursuit of truth, than the positioning to win. You see it with many posters here...they are less interested in the truth, than in playing gotcha! Language can be used in many different ways, and fact-finding is only one.

Of course, a lawyer has a client, and must play to win for the client, not to find truth. But, here? There are no clients. There's only the deep need for attention, or some personality compensation, that motivates the ones who have no interest in the objective truth. That’s why they so easily side-step the message, and turn to attacking the messenger.

As one steeped in science, you are looking for veracity, but it's the wrong thing to understand on-line interaction. You need to add psychology and psychoanalytic skills to your repertoire, in order to understand what goes on on-line.

Original Quill wrote:

Korben wrote:But some people are incapable of being corrected Quill or even admitting the are wrong or have misunderstood in some way ,they keep repeating the same old mantras regardless of expert testimony,or new up to date evidence  they tend to cling on to any information that seems to support there views.

Those people are not in the same pursuit as the rest of us.  They are not looking for truth, but adversity and role playing.  Actually, my post doesn't draw on my skills as an attorney, but what I learned & taught as an RA at Berkeley: research methods and the theory of logical positivism.

Perhaps you have a point Quill ,i do like truth and facts i do like evidence to support a statement ,. i have been "on the Internet before it was the "internet" from bulletin boards with a 56k modem and satellite hopping in to university's to super-fast fiber and the superhighway of information. but its only in the past 8 years it has gotten so bad with misinformation yes it was about a little before but Now its ubiquitous. they is literally a war going on under peoples noses its insidious,its dangerous,and its turning once rational and thoughtful people it to morons and conspiracy theorists.

Only one thing is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing'

i am incapable of believing all these conspiracy's or believing in the myths so often pushed in the world today,my brain just won't, cant make that leap of faith and abandon reason .  i need evidence that is peer reviewed with reliable and consistent data to support them

Well... We all heard very loudly about the "death of the glacier" in Iceland, and how it was proof of global warming/climate change...


But what they didn't loudly shout about was the fact that this glacier was only 700 years old... And it's 'birth' and 'death' coincide with our start and end of the 700 year long cold period known as the 'little ice age'.


Yes, the climate is always changing... Most of the last 5000 and 10000 years has been warmer or as warm as today... And there has also been cool periods... The data from the ice core studies in Greenland (GISP2) and the Antarctic (Vostok) prove this... In fact the Vostok data goes back 100s of thousands of years, and shows regular periodic dips into "ice ages", something that this data shows we may well be due for the start of another one...








Maybe korben can tell me which bits of my post are not true...?

Tommy Monk wrote:Well... We all heard very loudly about the "death of the glacier" in Iceland, and how it was proof of global warming/climate change...

But what they didn't loudly shout about was the fact that this glacier was only 700 years old... And it's 'birth' and 'death' coincide with our start and end of the 700 year long cold period known as the 'little ice age'

You used the right verb, tommy: "coincide". What you have is a coincidence of a variable with a theory...the age of the glacier and the theory of the "little ice age". It might give you some encouragement, but it's a long way from proof.

coincidence

"...the fact of corresponding in nature or in time of occurrence..."

Tommy Monk wrote:



Well... We all heard very loudly about the "death of the glacier" in Iceland, and how it was proof of global warming/climate change...


But what they didn't loudly shout about was the fact that this glacier was only 700 years old... And it's 'birth' and 'death' coincide with our start and end of the 700 year long cold period known as the 'little ice age'.


Yes, the climate is always changing... Most of the last 5000 and 10000 years has been warmer or as warm as today... And there has also been cool periods... The data from the ice core studies in Greenland (GISP2) and the Antarctic (Vostok) prove this... In fact the Vostok data goes back 100s of thousands of years, and shows regular periodic dips into "ice ages", something that this data shows we may well be due for the start of another one...








Maybe korben can tell me which bits of my post are not true...?

Still waiting...

Tommy Monk wrote:
coincidence

"...the fact of corresponding in nature or in time of occurrence..."

Well, it's your choice of words, not mine.

But yes...there is one glaring error that you are making in your correlation: you can't generalize from specifics.

You have one incident in your data-set; but you want to say it proves all incidents. It doesn't work that way. Generalizations presume that there are multiple instances from which you draw proof. You've got only one.

Iwhat the fuck are you waffling about?


The little ice age is well documented... It started at the same time that the glacier formed... The glacier "died" after the end of the little ice age as temperatures rose back to much the same as it was before the little ice age...


This is backed up by GISP2 data from Greenland ice core study.


And both GISP2 AND VOSTOK show fluctuations in temperatures over thousands of years!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:
coincidence

"...the fact of corresponding in nature or in time of occurrence..."

And, not my words, actually a dictionary definition of what you described as "coincidence"...

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Well... We all heard very loudly about the "death of the glacier" in Iceland, and how it was proof of global warming/climate change...

But what they didn't loudly shout about was the fact that this glacier was only 700 years old... And it's 'birth' and 'death' coincide with our start and end of the 700 year long cold period known as the 'little ice age'

You used the right verb, tommy: "coincide".  What you have is a coincidence of a variable with a theory...the age of the glacier and the theory of the "little ice age".  It might give you some encouragement, but it's a long way from proof.

Possible causes (little ice age)


Scientists have tentatively identified seven possible causes of the Little Ice Age: orbital cycles; decreased solar activity; increased volcanic activity; altered ocean current flows;fluctuations in the human population in different parts of the world causing reforestation, or deforestation; and the inherent variability of global climate.
Orbital cycles
Main article: Milankovich cycles

Orbital forcing from cycles in the earth's orbit around the sun has, for the past 2,000 years, caused a long-term northern hemisphere cooling trend that continued through the Middle Ages and the Little Ice Age. The rate of Arctic cooling is roughly 0.02 °C per century. This trend could be extrapolated to continue into the future, possibly leading to a full ice age, but the twentieth-century instrumental temperature record shows a sudden reversal of this trend, with a rise in global temperatures attributed to greenhouse gas emissions.
Solar activity
Main article: Solar variation
Solar activity events recorded in radiocarbon
The Maunder minimum in a 400-year history of sunspot numbers

There is still a very poor understanding of the correlation between low sunspot activity and cooling temperatures.[88][89] During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period between 1460 and 1550.[90] Other indicators of low solar activity during this period are levels of the isotopes carbon-14 and beryllium-10.
Volcanic activity
Main article: Little Ice Age volcanism

In a 2012 paper, Miller et al. link the Little Ice Age to an "unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg" and notes that "large changes in solar irradiance are not required."

Throughout the Little Ice Age, the world experienced heightened volcanic activity. When a volcano erupts, its ash reaches high into the atmosphere and can spread to cover the whole earth. The ash cloud blocks out some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to worldwide cooling that can last up to two years after an eruption. Also emitted by eruptions is sulfur, in the form of sulfur dioxide gas. When it reaches the stratosphere, it turns into sulfuric acid particles, which reflect the sun's rays, further reducing the amount of radiation reaching Earth's surface.

A recent study found that an especially massive tropical volcanic eruption in 1257, possibly of the now-extinct Mount Samalas near Mount Rinjani, both in Lombok, Indonesia, followed by three smaller eruptions in 1268, 1275, and 1284 did not allow the climate to recover. This may have caused the initial cooling, and the 1452–53 eruption of Kuwae in Vanuatu triggered a second pulse of cooling. The cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed.

Other volcanoes that erupted during the era and may have contributed to the cooling include Billy Mitchell (ca. 1580), Huaynaputina (1600), Mount Parker (1641), Long Island (Papua New Guinea) (ca. 1660), and Laki (1783).[23] The 1815 eruption of Tambora, also in Indonesia, blanketed the atmosphere with ash; the following year, 1816, came to be known as the Year Without a Summer,[93] when frost and snow were reported in June and July in both New England and Northern Europe.
Ocean circulation
Thermohaline circulation or Oceanic conveyor belt illustrated

Another possibility is that there was a slowing of thermohaline circulation.[55][86][94][95] The circulation could have been interrupted by the introduction of a large amount of fresh water into the North Atlantic, possibly caused by a period of warming before the Little Ice Age known as the Medieval Warm Period. There is some concern that a shutdown of thermohaline circulation could happen again as a result of the present warming period.
Decreased human populations

Some researchers have proposed that human influences on climate began earlier than is normally supposed (see Early anthropocene for more details) and that major population declines in Eurasia and the Americas reduced this impact, leading to a cooling trend.

The Black Death is estimated to have killed 30% to 60% of Europe's population. In total, the plague may have reduced the world population from an estimated 475 million to 350–375 million in the 14th century.[101] It took 200 years for the world population to recover to its previous level. William Ruddiman proposed that these large population reductions in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East caused a decrease in agricultural activity. Ruddiman suggests reforestation took place, allowing more carbon dioxide uptake from the atmosphere, which may have been a factor in the cooling noted during the Little Ice Age. Ruddiman further hypothesized that a reduced population in the Americas after European contact in the 16th century could have had a similar effect. Other researchers supported depopulation in the Americas as a factor, asserting that humans had cleared considerable amounts of forest to support agriculture in the Americas before the arrival of Europeans brought on a population collapse.Richard Nevle, Robert Dull and colleagues further suggested that not only anthropogenic forest clearance played a role in reducing the amount of carbon sequestered in Neotropical forests, but that human-set fires played a central role in reducing biomass in Amazonian and Central American forests before the arrival of Europeans and the concomitant spread of diseases during the Columbian exchange. Dull and Nevle calculated that reforestation in the tropical biomes of the Americas alone from 1500 to 1650 accounted for net carbon sequestration of 2-5 Pg. Brierley conjectured that European arrival in the Americas caused mass deaths from epidemic disease, which caused much abandonment of farmland, which caused much return of forest, which sequestered greater levels of carbon dioxide. A study of sediment cores and soil samples further suggests that carbon dioxide uptake via reforestation in the Americas could have contributed to the Little Ice Age.The depopulation is linked to a drop in carbon dioxide levels observed at Law Dome, Antarctica.[105] A 2011 study by the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology asserts that the Mongol invasions and conquests, which lasted almost two centuries, contributed to global cooling by depopulating vast regions and allowing for the return of carbon absorbing forest over cultivated land.
Increased human populations at high latitudes

It has been speculated that increased human populations living at high latitudes caused the Little Ice Age through deforestation. The increased albedo due to this deforestation (more reflection of solar rays from snow-covered ground than dark, tree-covered area) could have had a profound effect on global temperatures.
Inherent variability of climate

Spontaneous fluctuations in global climate might explain past variability. It is very difficult to know what the true level of variability from internal causes might be given the existence of other forces, as noted above, whose magnitude may not be known. One approach to evaluating internal variability is to use long integrations of coupled ocean-atmosphere global climate models. They have the advantage that the external forcing is known to be zero, but the disadvantage is that they may not fully reflect reality. The variations may result from chaos-driven changes in the oceans, the atmosphere, or interactions between the two. Two studies have concluded that the demonstrated inherent variability is not great enough to account for the Little Ice Age. The severe winters of 1770 to 1772 in Europe, however, have been attributed to an anomaly in the North Atlantic oscillation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Possible_causes

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



Well... We all heard very loudly about the "death of the glacier" in Iceland, and how it was proof of global warming/climate change...


But what they didn't loudly shout about was the fact that this glacier was only 700 years old... And it's 'birth' and 'death' coincide with our start and end of the 700 year long cold period known as the 'little ice age'.


Yes, the climate is always changing... Most of the last 5000 and 10000 years has been warmer or as warm as today... And there has also been cool periods... The data from the ice core studies in Greenland (GISP2) and the Antarctic (Vostok) prove this... In fact the Vostok data goes back 100s of thousands of years, and shows regular periodic dips into "ice ages", something that this data shows we may well be due for the start of another one...








Maybe korben can tell me which bits of my post are not true...?

Still waiting...

Still waiting...

RE the op... What you shouldn't do is gulliibly believe something, when there is a huge body of evidence that shows it to be bullshit...

Lots of waffle...

As much as I disagree with Tommy and even how frustrating as it maybe, that he ignores scientific data. He has every right to formulate his views around science and express them

Hence Tommy is a side issue here, but back him to express any crap he believes in so we can debate

The issue of the thread topic is very problematic

Often doing your own research is needed to challenge other research

Hence a view people to not doing their own science, is a poor philosophy.

As its takes a view to never challenge and make a view of acceptance on views without exception

You need opposing bias date from opposing sides on issue, to counter balance any bias found in the data collected

It allows neutral people to critical assess the data and evidence

This then allows for people to form their own ideas or version on this. With a view of the later to perfect

Hence its always important to do your own research, more so to understand and see the results for themselves.

To argue for research to be done by  others.  Takes away an incentive to challenge other beliefs. If you cannot formulate your own ideas in science. In society, then science stagnates. Its the belief to formulate new ideas that has constantly seen civilisation move forward. As other scientists had bold ideas

You will never convince people by invoking an academic status. You will only convince people by sound arguments being critical

Its near impossible to do this, if you are unable to carry out your own research. Peoples persuasion  is based on how good someone is in manipulating people to their ideas.

I see academics use their status today as if to shut down any debate

That is wrong

If people hold different views that do not effect the well being of others. So be it. The point is if you know you are right and cannot persuade people. The issue is not about the facts. The issue is about how you are presenting the facts

Its why atheists will be at cross swords. We argue against belief systems with evidence. Yet if you are a crap speaker you will convince nobody and the facts do not matter

For fats to matter requires somebody who is convincing

Went off tangent a bit but I guess you get my point

Didgee wrote:As much as I disagree with Tommy and even how frustrating as it maybe, that he ignores scientific data. He has every right to formulate his views around science and express them

Hence Tommy is a side issue here, but back him to express any crap he believes in so we can debate

The issue of the thread topic is very problematic

Often doing your own research is needed to challenge other research

Hence a view people to not doing their own science, is a poor philosophy.

As its takes a view to never challenge and make a view of acceptance on views without exception

You need opposing bias date from opposing sides on issue, to counter balance any bias found in the data collected

It allows neutral people to critical assess the data and evidence

This then allows for people to form their own ideas or version on this. With a view of the later to perfect

Hence its always important to do your own research, more so to understand and see the results for themselves.

To argue for research to be done by  others.  Takes away an incentive to challenge other beliefs. If you cannot formulate your own ideas in science. In society, then science stagnates. Its the belief to formulate new ideas that has constantly seen civilisation move forward. As other scientists had bold ideas

You will never convince people by invoking an academic status. You will only convince people by sound arguments being critical

Its near impossible to do this, if you are unable to carry out your own research. Peoples persuasion  is based on how good someone is in manipulating people to their ideas.

I see academics use their status today as if to shut down any debate

That is wrong

If people hold different views that do not effect the well being of others. So be it. The point is if you know you are right and cannot persuade people. The issue is not about the facts. The issue is about how you are presenting the facts

Its why atheists will be at cross swords. We argue against belief systems with evidence. Yet if you are a crap speaker you will convince nobody and the facts do not matter

For fats to matter requires somebody who is convincing

Went off tangent a bit but I guess you get my point

Sorry forgot to add

This why progression in society has taken so long

Because the fear arguments always outweigh any view to progression with civil rights for example

People can relate to fear, as they live this in daily lives

Its harder for people to relate to progression, The reason, is because more often than not people think negatively, Due to being fed a daily diet of negative news. This then allows for a weird situation. 

Change only comes from neutralizing the fear itself. It means the fear itself has to be minimized

Hence changing ideas comes from understanding. Understanding reduces fears, Then those fears become controlled in an illusionary bases. Through a view those in fear of them, now believe they have control over them. 

We end up empowering people through persuasion. The claimed best arguments use manipulation to control people  on fear

What people always miss and fail to understand is that the best arguments are those that are able to quell those fear. As its that much harder to overcome fears, Hence minimizing those fears through evidence based scientific speech. Would encourage more academics to research their fields

Tommy Monk wrote:Iwhat the fuck are you waffling about?

The little ice age is well documented... It started at the same time that the glacier formed... The glacier "died" after the end of the little ice age as temperatures rose back to much the same as it was before the little ice age...

No question it is well documented. But we are not arguing the existence of the 'little ice age'. Your hypothesis is that it is the cause of the syndrome, and not global warming. You are setting up a counter-hypothesis to global warming. The horserace is between competing causes.

That's where you have failed.

I do get you point Didgee

But as i have chosen to Simply ignore the individual,so it is difficult to give a full and frank answer to your points ,as it would/could be an seen as a personal Attack

I dont do personal attacks,or fling abuse,call people names ,or questions peoples intelligence
that's just not my style and have little time for thous that do

So simply ignoring people is for me the best option ,i and others have presented plenty of facts from reputable sources but as they are ignored,so they is no point trying to labor the point
And its best to just walk away

people are completely free to have an opinion whether that opinion is wrong or right But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false.

Quill.. it's quite simple... We have come out of the unusual 700 year cool period... Temperatures have risen slightly because it's back to more like what the longer term normal is... End of story...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Quill.. it's quite simple... We have come out of the unusual 700 year cool period... Temperatures have risen slightly because it's back to more like what the longer term normal is... End of story...

I know what the little ice-age is, tom. It's in all the history books, and explanations in encyclopedias. It’s an alternative theory, but does not explain all of the manifestations of global warming.

Korben wrote:I do get you point Didgee

But as i have chosen to Simply ignore the individual,so it is difficult to give a full and frank answer to your points ,as it would/could  be an seen as a personal Attack

I dont do personal attacks,or fling abuse,call people names ,or questions peoples intelligence
that's just not my style and have little time for thous that do

So simply ignoring people is for me the best option ,i and others have presented plenty of facts from reputable sources but as they are ignored,so  they is no point trying to labor the point
And its best to just walk away

people are completely free to have an opinion whether that opinion is wrong or right But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false.

 

Mate you are as sound as a pound and this is no reflection on anyone here. (Part from the tommy point)

The point is we can never judge speech, When we do we often invade peoples civil liberties

We can however and rightly judge action's

And base risk values of tis

The point is those views you disagree with require better arguments. As sadly and it frustrates me. People are by nature sceptical and at the same time religious by and large. Human faith always takes preference, because at present that negative fears controls people

Hence why atheism is growing. There is little to fear from when it does not impose its beliefs onto others

We should never hold a view to see people castigated by their identity.

We have every right to challenge that ideological belief

Laters mate

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Quill.. it's quite simple... We have come out of the unusual 700 year cool period... Temperatures have risen slightly because it's back to more like what the longer term normal is... End of story...

I know what the little ice-age is, tom. It's in all the history books, and explanations in encyclopedias. It’s an alternative theory, but does not explain all of the manifestations of global warming.

Coming out of the little ice age explains all of the 0.7 degrees Celsius rise over the last century...


We are back to what is more like the longer term normal.


Although if you look at the Vostok ice core data, that goes back hundreds of thousands of years, you will see a pattern of quite startling regularity showing a cycle of ice ages every 100,000 years or so... And it looks like we may well be due for the start of another one...!

Didgee wrote:

Korben wrote:I do get you point Didgee

But as i have chosen to Simply ignore the individual,so it is difficult to give a full and frank answer to your points ,as it would/could  be an seen as a personal Attack

I dont do personal attacks,or fling abuse,call people names ,or questions peoples intelligence
that's just not my style and have little time for thous that do

So simply ignoring people is for me the best option ,i and others have presented plenty of facts from reputable sources but as they are ignored,so  they is no point trying to labor the point
And its best to just walk away

people are completely free to have an opinion whether that opinion is wrong or right But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false.

 

Mate you are as sound as a pound and this is no reflection on anyone here. (Part from the tommy point)

The point is we can never judge speech, When we do we often invade peoples civil liberties

We can however and rightly judge action's

And base risk values of tis

The point is those views you disagree with require better arguments. As sadly and it frustrates me. People are by nature sceptical and at the same time religious by and large. Human faith always takes preference, because at present that negative fears controls people

Hence why atheism is growing. There is little to fear from when it does not impose its beliefs onto others

We should never hold a view to see people castigated by their identity.

We have every right to challenge that ideological belief

Laters mate

I have never been ideological or religious for that matter but i have found when somebody resorts to name calling ect, its a defense mechanism and shows they they find the facts valid, whether they care to admit it or not

The OP is flawed.

Even scientists keep researching all the time because they know they aren’t always 100% correct in their findings which is why they change their minds so much and scientists often contradict each other.

I'd say it's better to keep doing your own research, but it's also very important to avoid confirmation bias -- the tendency to place a lot of importance on things you find that agree with what you already want to believe, and to disregard or hand-wave away anything that doesn't fit with your preconceived mindset.

That's why actual scientists look just as hard for evidence that makes their theories wrong as they do for evidence that supports their theories.

Otherwise you get something like this:

I have red hair and I like the notion that redheads are feisty. So I'm going to point out all the other feisty redheads I've known/heard of, and ignore the calm, placid redheads out there.

Confirmation bias is how people become prejudiced, as they ignore anything that makes their conclusions wrong.

eddie wrote:The OP is flawed.

Even scientists keep researching all the time because they know they aren’t always 100% correct in their findings which is why they change their minds so much and scientists often contradict each other.

The article actually pointed that out, eddie. So did I:

Original Quill wrote:You are talking about the corrigibility of science. Science involves operationalization of variables, testing and conclusions--which, again, are subject to inevitable interrogation (re-tests or new-tests). We can't do testing on-line—your example of flying a plane—so we must limit ourselves to discussion, or those parts of science that involve images of fact and logic.

Corrigibility means correctability or capable of being improved. Scientific truths are ever-changing, ever-improving, as science itself improves. It is a process, not a thing.

Just to add -- my own personal rule of thumb is that anything that makes you sit back and go, "All is right in the world, is being done the right way, and we're all more or less going to be okay" is most likely bullshit.

Sorry, didn’t read your post Quill. I probably should do that before I jump in and make my point

eddie wrote:Sorry, didn’t read your post Quill. I probably should do that before I jump in and make my point

Nah...not a problem. I know...ya read something, and want to jump right it. I do it all the time.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Sorry, didn’t read your post Quill. I probably should do that before I jump in and make my point

Nah...not a problem.  I know...ya read something, and want to jump right it.  I do it all the time.

I know you do

I think a lot of people don't understand what real science is. A scientist researching evolution doesn't spend all their time preaching that we evolved from apes and that we must believe that, for example.

They say, "The evidence gathered thus far points strongly at an origin from apes for human beings. We've found no evidence that contradicts this theory, and ample evidence from multiple fields of study that supports this theory."

eddie wrote:The OP is flawed.

Even scientists keep researching all the time because they know they aren’t always 100% correct in their findings which is why they change their minds so much and scientists often contradict each other.

The main point is "scientists keep researching" people trained in the scientific method,a scientist develops a hypothesis, tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments.this is how science works and advances
Step 1- Question.
Step 2-Research.
Step 3-Hypothesis.
Step 4-Experiment.
Step 5-Observations.
Step 6-Results/Conclusion
Step 7- Communicate. Present/share your results. Replicate
then back to step one

Most people dont do any of that ,most just read a single conclusion on the internet and when it fits there often preconceived view they stick with it to the exclusion of all other research

Everyone is looking for short-cuts. They don't want to diet, they want a pill.

Korben wrote:

eddie wrote:The OP is flawed.

Even scientists keep researching all the time because they know they aren’t always 100% correct in their findings which is why they change their minds so much and scientists often contradict each other.

The main point is "scientists keep researching" people trained in the scientific method,a scientist develops a hypothesis, tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments.this is how science works and advances
Step 1- Question.
Step 2-Research.
Step 3-Hypothesis.
Step 4-Experiment.
Step 5-Observations.
Step 6-Results/Conclusion
Step 7- Communicate. Present/share your results. Replicate
then back to step one

Most people dont do any of that ,most just read a single conclusion on the internet and when it fits there often preconceived view they stick with it to the exclusion of all other research

I don’t. I take everything with a pinch of salt. Unless I see it, hear it, or experience it for myself, I’m just making someone else’s opinion, mine.