Jump to content


Click Here To Visit Our Sponsor


Photo

Change a skeptic's mind?


  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

#106 Old Guy

Old Guy

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Alamos, NM

Posted 15 May 2010 - 10:23 AM

All you need are verifiable facts to convince true skeptic.

I've been thinking about this ever since. Though I totally agree, I'm thinking we don't know yet how the true skeptic will react because there are no "verifiable facts." And even then, a true skeptic may remain unconvinced because s/he will find another point to argue. True?

To wit: Global warming. The scientific community is deadlocked over the cause, the effect, and what (if anything) can be done about it.
Cynic. Skeptic. Believer.|||||||^

#107 CaveRat2

CaveRat2

    Village Elder

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayette County, Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 15 May 2010 - 01:45 PM

All you need are verifiable facts to convince true skeptic.

I've been thinking about this ever since. Though I totally agree, I'm thinking we don't know yet how the true skeptic will react because there are no "verifiable facts." And even then, a true skeptic may remain unconvinced because s/he will find another point to argue. True?

To wit: Global warming. The scientific community is deadlocked over the cause, the effect, and what (if anything) can be done about it.


The Global warming theory is in the same boat as paranormal investigation. The problem is some are trying to jump to conclusions before all the facts are known and understood. Just as we don't understand exactly what constitutes a ghost, they don't understand what if any effect increased C)2 has. All they can do is spout off a bunch of rhetoric, just as some ghost people do as well.

Once the facts are known and fully understood only then can people make a plan to correct or change whatever is happening. The global warming people run around making a bunch of unverified claims about what is happening and what to do about it. But how is that different than an investigator misusing equipment and claiming results he can't confirm?

In my mind people in both fields still need to do a lot of work before claiming any real authority over them. About the only real difference is ghost hunters making unsubstantiated claims really don't do much harm except to themselves and maybe their clients to some degree. Global warming whackos have managed to cost us all billions of $$$ trying to correct something that hasn't been proven to even be anything we caused or can do a thing about.

#108 Old Guy

Old Guy

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Alamos, NM

Posted 15 May 2010 - 02:21 PM

Global warming whackos have managed to cost us all billions of $$$ trying to correct something that hasn't been proven to even be anything we caused or can do a thing about.

Agreed. Wanna buy some carbon credits?
Cynic. Skeptic. Believer.|||||||^

#109 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 15 May 2010 - 05:34 PM

All you need are verifiable facts to convince true skeptic.

I've been thinking about this ever since. Though I totally agree, I'm thinking we don't know yet how the true skeptic will react because there are no "verifiable facts." And even then, a true skeptic may remain unconvinced because s/he will find another point to argue. True?

To wit: Global warming. The scientific community is deadlocked over the cause, the effect, and what (if anything) can be done about it.


The Global warming theory is in the same boat as paranormal investigation. The problem is some are trying to jump to conclusions before all the facts are known and understood. Just as we don't understand exactly what constitutes a ghost, they don't understand what if any effect increased C)2 has. All they can do is spout off a bunch of rhetoric, just as some ghost people do as well.

Once the facts are known and fully understood only then can people make a plan to correct or change whatever is happening. The global warming people run around making a bunch of unverified claims about what is happening and what to do about it.

Global warming whackos have managed to cost us all billions of $$$ trying to correct something that hasn't been proven to even be anything we caused or can do a thing about.



Global warming whackos have managed to cost us all billions of $$$ trying to correct something that hasn't been proven to even be anything we caused or can do a thing about.

Agreed. Wanna buy some carbon credits?


To change the topic for just a moment read this.

This week The Science Show presents excerpts from a symposium at the recent American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in San Diego which looks at the sources and strategies of scepticism to climate change science. While the science supporting anthropogenic climate change becomes stronger and more consensual, it still remains highly controversial. This symposium addresses the contributors to this anomaly, and the success of contrarian scientists and others in promoting climate change scepticism throughout society.


http://www.abc.net.a....htm#transcript

The only reason there's a conflict is do to the anti AGW denialists. For a multitude of reasons they refuse to consider humans have any role.
The science is sound for AGW. Stop listening to the talking heads and start learning the science.


#110 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 339 posts

Posted 15 May 2010 - 11:43 PM

[/quote]
The only reason there's a conflict is do to the anti AGW denialists. For a multitude of reasons they refuse to consider humans have any role.
The science is sound for AGW. Stop listening to the talking heads and start learning the science.

[/quote]

For someone who doesn’t know much about anything, you certainly don’t let your ignorance prevent you from expressing very strong opinions on a range of topics.

In your rant about the “anit AGW denialists” you evidently are unaware of both the realities of “the science” and the fraud perpetrated by the more prominent of the “warmists”: specifically, Phil Jones, Michael Mann and James Hansen.

Their fraud has led to deluding the general public into believing that a problem exists where in reality “ the science” demonstrates that there is none; and to governments all over the world implementing immensely destructive and costly policies to counter this non existent problem.

This has resulted in the waste of immense amounts of money and energy which could have been spent on solving real environmental problems.

It these three were bankers on Wall Street, they would already be in jail for criminal fraud; but since they are “scientists” they are a protected species and are not required to answer for their actions.

So, I agree that people should learn the science; you included.

#111 Old Guy

Old Guy

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Alamos, NM

Posted 16 May 2010 - 11:04 AM

Global Warming: "Learn the science."

I want to preface this with I'm not choosing sides. I believe the jury is still out. But I've observed a few things that point to one simple principle of physics.

1) In the Cub Scouts, I learned that if you bend the corners up on a business card so it will hold about a teaspoon of water, you can hold the card over a candle and the water will boil before the card burns.

2) In Physical Science class, we dropped ice into a test tube and held it in place with a coil of wire. Then added water to the top of the test tube (the ice can't float to the top). Then, holding the water end of the test tube over a bunsen burner, the water will boil before the ice melts.

3) When I bought my water bed (a very long time ago), the salesperson lit a cigarette and placed it on the bare water mattress. The cigarette went out before it left a mark on the mattress.

All these things demonstrate water's affinity to absorb heat. We live on a water planet. If my Father (with his Mensa-class I.Q.) is correct, the damage has already been done and we're all screwed anyway. The problem with assuming the position of "learn the science" is, WHICH science? Up to now, the science is all theory and the scientific community is still divided. Which is what I said earlier when I brought up global warming.

If this message board wants to continue discussing global conditions, how about:

The hole in the ozone?
Ebola?
MRSA?
Over population?
Why Chinese men are snapping and hacking kindergarteners to death?
Earthquakes?
Volcanoes?
Reptiles dying off in record numbers?
Ad nauseum...

I'm leaning toward the hypothesis that the human infestation of this planet has thrown this tiny ecosphere out of balance it has started a purge process. No matter what we do to screw it up, nature will always seek a balanced equilibrium. Just ask a dinosaur.

IMHO - Anyone that doesn't believe these are the end times is just plain naiive.

Just needed to vent. Have a nice day.

Edited by Old Guy, 16 May 2010 - 11:06 AM.

Cynic. Skeptic. Believer.|||||||^

#112 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 339 posts

Posted 17 May 2010 - 07:17 PM

Since we are on the subject:

CHICAGO -- A prominent U.S. geologist is urging the world to forget about global warming because global cooling has already begun.

Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook's warning came in the form of a new scientific paper he presented to the 4th International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago on May 16, 2010. Dr. Easterbrook is an Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications. Easterbrook's full resume is here.

Dr. Easterbrook joins many other scientists, peer-reviewed research and scientific societies warning of a coming global cooling. Easterbrook is presenting his findings alongside other man-made global warming skeptics at the three day conference in Chicago.

Dr. Easterbrook's key excerpts:

That global warming is over, at least for a few decades, might seem to be a relief. However, the bad news is that global cooling is even more harmful to humans than global warming and a cause for even greater concern because:

1. A recent study showed that twice as many people are killed by extreme cold than by extreme heat.

2. Global cooling will have an adverse effect on food production because of shorter growing seasons, cooler growing seasons, and bad weather during harvest seasons. This is already happening in the Midwestern U.S., China, India, and other places in the world. Hardest hit will be third world countries where millions are already near starvation levels.

3. Increase in per capita energy demands, especially for heating.

4. Decrease in the ability to cope with problems related to the population explosion. World population is projected to reach more than 9 billion by 2050, an increase of 50%. This means a substantial increase in demand for food and energy at a time when both are decreasing because of the cooling climate.

CONCLUSIONS:

Numerous, abrupt, short-lived warming and cooling episodes, much more intense than recent warming/cooling, occurred during the last Ice Age, none of which could have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. .

Climate changes in the geologic record show a regular pattern of alternate warming and cooling with a 25-30 year period for the past 500 years.

Strong correlation between solar changes, the PDO, glacier advance and retreat, and global climate allow us to project a consistent pattern into the future.

Strong correlation between solar changes, the PDO, glacier advance and retreat, and global climate allow us to project a consistent pattern into the future.

Projected cooling for the next several decades is based on past PDO patterns for the past century and temperature patterns for the past 500 years. Three possible scenarios are shown: (1) global cooling similar to the global cooling of 1945 to 1977, (2) global cooling similar to the cool period from 1880 to 1915, and (3) global cooling similar to the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1820.

Expect global cooling for the next 2-3 decades that will be far more damaging than global warming would have been.

#113 Old Guy

Old Guy

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Alamos, NM

Posted 18 May 2010 - 08:48 AM

2. Global cooling will have an adverse effect on food production because of shorter growing seasons, cooler growing seasons, and bad weather during harvest seasons. This is already happening in the Midwestern U.S., China, India, and other places in the world. Hardest hit will be third world countries where millions are already near starvation levels.

Not to mention:

White Nose Syndrome, and
Colony Collapse Disorder

We are SO screwed.
Cynic. Skeptic. Believer.|||||||^

#114 CaveRat2

CaveRat2

    Village Elder

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayette County, Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 18 May 2010 - 08:59 AM

So to go back to the original question (Not that global warming / cooling is not an excellent topic for debate!) What level of evidence would convince skeptics of either topic to change their minds? Both fields seem to have their detracters and proponents, there seems to be plenty of argument from all sides that is not resolving either issue. So what would be the convincing point for either side and how might one make it?

#115 Old Guy

Old Guy

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Alamos, NM

Posted 18 May 2010 - 10:46 AM

So what would be the convincing point for either side and how might one make it?

All you need are verifiable facts to convince true skeptic.


And sorry for hijacking this thread. Just one of my many soap boxes.

Edited by Old Guy, 18 May 2010 - 10:46 AM.

Cynic. Skeptic. Believer.|||||||^

#116 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 339 posts

Posted 19 May 2010 - 08:11 PM

So to go back to the original question (Not that global warming / cooling is not an excellent topic for debate!) What level of evidence would convince skeptics of either topic to change their minds? Both fields seem to have their detracters and proponents, there seems to be plenty of argument from all sides that is not resolving either issue. So what would be the convincing point for either side and how might one make it?

While I understand your point, and what you are getting at, I think you misunderstand the broader context of the issue.

Specifically, you are looking for a rational, reasonable and intelligent approach by which to advance the argument. Implicit in this approach is the assumption that logic and reason will prevail.

However, the issue is not one of logic and argument; it is one of belief.

On both sides of the argument, there are “true believers”. These “true believers” will believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of evidence.

Whatever evidence is presented to a “true believer” will be rationalized by them in a manner which best supports their belief; any evidence which can’t be rationalized to conform to their belief, will be ridiculed and dismissed.

This pattern of behavior is commonplace in human affairs; it can be seen in politics, in religion and in science.

So, while your questions are of interest, in terms of producing anything leading to resolution of the argument, they are futile.

#117 SuperJodi

SuperJodi

    Member

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 06:20 PM

In some ways I'd call my self a skeptic in so much as I don't just jump to the conclusion that every strange or immediately unexplained thing is some sort of a supernatural occurrence. Myself, like a lot of other skeptics simply require more proof to believe than some people. My cousin as much as I love her thinks ever spec of dust is an orb, almost obsessive and lacking reasonable thought.

So just dropping someone in what may be considered a well known haunted location isn't going to convince someone. These sort of people will search for other logical explanations to first rule out a very real and physical reason for things. Where as someone who wants badly to believe may account everything to the paranormal, even when it isn't so. There is a balance to be had, not everything is paranormal, but not everything can be explained with logic and reason of the physical world. A true skeptic can believe in the paranormal, but it must first make sense and be able to rule out other causes. I seriously doubt anyone would sit there stammering like an idiot just because they saw something that may indeed be a true haunting.

I remember hearing how the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, CO was haunted. That was when I was in high school and I dismissed it because the things this person were telling me constituted a haunting were laughable. I don't even remember what it was that they said happened that they decided it was 'haunted' over, that's how insignificant it was in my mind. Fast forward to 1995 when I got married, hubby and I spent our wedding night at the Stanley before we went on our honeymoon. (I live 30 min away from Estes Park by the way) We got there late so nothing was open in Estes except for Taco Bell. I was hungry so off we went around 11pm'ish. I got back and noticed that our bags had been emptied and put into the drawers neatly. I commented to hubby how they must still do a turn down service because everything was unpacked and the bed turned down. I didn't think anything of it after that. Then about two years ago my best friend said she watched a ghost hunters thing up there and that was one of the common things people would call down to the front desk about. That the hotel hasn't had turn down service in forever, but it was common to that one room in the hotel. Something about some maid dying in that room. I read up on it and my response was far from stammering uh uh uh like an idiot. It was more like "hmm well that's interesting, maybe it really is haunted" and went on with my life like normal.

#118 NotSure

NotSure

    Junior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 30 January 2011 - 09:16 PM

Interesting thread. I admit to being quite scared at the mere possibility of there being "real ghosts" out there. I am not sure wether I have ever consciously encountered anything paranormal, or if what I perceived as being "outside the range of normal activity in my environment" has been quite simply my overactive imagination. I was young back then... :(

I am still quite young, but I started working the night shift in a nursing home about 3 years ago. And working in a house next to the graveyard, having to walk down long, dark hallways while someone is banging their head, loudly grinding their teeth or simply screaming and wailing, while tree branches knock against the windows and doors slam somewhere in the house, or finding myself searching outside for missing inhabitants of the nursing home while all kinds of animals crawl through the scrub alongside the roads has done its share to really calm said imagination down.

In short: In those 3 years I have never encountered anything even remotely like paranormal activity, ghosts, spirits,... I have taken care of seriously sick and dying people, and stood in rooms recently emptied after the inhabitants had died. Nothing.

I am not asking for "contact" - I am just saying that if there is a place where spirits would roam - surely it would be something like the 140 years old nursing home that I am working in??




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users