Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

[Snowmonkey]

So you can find people who dispute the consensus and are given a platform to do so, but there in fact is a consensus and has been for a long time in the large community of climate scientists. That community is anything but a group of drones moving in lockstep on many issues, but they certainly agree on AGW, just as otherwise disputatious biologists agree on evolution, for example.

The debate about climate change and what to do about it seems unnecessarily polarised. The attitude seems to be either you believe in AGW and do something about it or you don't believe and you do nothing. I'm no fan of Rupert Murdoch, but he seemed to me to nail it some years ago when he pointed out that on the evidence, there is at least a substantial chance that AGW is significant, so it makes sense to take action to counter it. You don't have to be certain your house is going to catch fire to take out home insurance.

[dean70]

CERN PHYSICIST AMIT GOSWAMI: WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WE’RE DOING…

 

CERN PHYSICIST AMIT GOSWAMI: WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WE'RE DOING... - Alchemy

[Audio_ELF]

I guess the same principles apply to users of heroin, ice and crack.

There is an argument that if you make heroin, etc. available in a controlled but legal way; the costs of treatment are less than the costs of enforcing prohibition...

[Snowmonkey]

There is an argument that if you make heroin, etc. available in a controlled but legal way; the costs of treatment are less than the costs of enforcing prohibition...

They already do - it's called Methadone.

[Audio_ELF]

They already do - it's called Methadone.

Which actually causes worse addition than heroine...

 

Methadone is NOT a solution to drug addiction.

[Jud]

CERN PHYSICIST AMIT GOSWAMI: WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WE’RE DOING…

 

CERN PHYSICIST AMIT GOSWAMI: WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WE'RE DOING... - Alchemy

 

This stuff is tremendously entertaining. Here's praise regarding the author of the blog on which that link appears:

 

He has continued Igor Witkowski's and Nick Cook's research into the enigmatic Nazi Bell: an experimental device, classified at the highest level, that seems to have been used to investigate time distortion effects or antigravity - very possibly both - based on the beginnings of theoretical torsion physics that was being developed in the 1920s and 1930s by a number of brilliant European scientists, themselves very much ahead of their time.

 

Time distortion! Antigravity! Theoretical torsion physics! (Torsion field (pseudoscience) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

You can't make this stuff up...or actually, you can. In fact, you have to, since it ain't true.

[sbgk]

Which actually causes worse addition than heroine...

 

 

yes, the affects of drugs on arithmetic is an area largely unresearched.

[sbgk]

There is an argument that if you make heroin, etc. available in a controlled but legal way; the costs of treatment are less than the costs of enforcing prohibition...

 

yes, but then we wouldn't have the war on drugs which feeds into the military industrial complex profits.

[Jud]

yes, but then we wouldn't have the war on drugs which feeds into the military industrial complex profits.

 

Fortunately Washington state, Washington DC, California, Colorado and Alaska have huge armies and have been able to fight off the military industrial complex.

[Hiro]

Here's a clue- if AGW is true, then we engineer the environment every bit as much as we depend upon it. AGW is true.

 

AGW is true, you are right about that. But the verb "to engineer" implies thoughtful planning and deliberate action. Are you implying that global warming caused by burning of fossil fuels is deliberate?

 

By the way, would you describe this kind of environment as being engineered?

 

[sbgk]

Fortunately Washington state, Washington DC, California, Colorado and Alaska have huge armies and have been able to fight off the military industrial complex.

 

huge armies of pot growers ?

[sbgk]

AGW is true, you are right about that. But the verb "to engineer" implies thoughtful planning and deliberate action. Are you implying that global warming caused by burning of fossil fuels is deliberate?

 

By the way, would you describe this kind of environment as being engineered?

 

 

Part of an Indian recycling scheme ? So yes it's engineered. Not to Western tastes, but it's not too long ago that you could see such things in the west.

[firedog]

Part of an Indian recycling scheme ? So yes it's engineered. Not to Western tastes, but it's not too long ago that you could see such things in the west.

 

No, not engineered, just not fully considered. What economists like to call an "externality".

 

That's exactly one of the big problems with pollution - the polluter often doesn't pay for the cost of the pollution he makes - it's turned into a "social" or "environmental" cost, often at little or no cost to the polluter.

[Priaptor]

I guess the same principles apply to users of heroin, ice and crack.

 

YUP.

 

apply the same logic to anything you like.

[mayhem13]

This stuff is tremendously entertaining. Here's praise regarding the author of the blog on which that link appears:

 

 

 

Time distortion! Antigravity! Theoretical torsion physics! (Torsion field (pseudoscience) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

You can't make this stuff up...or actually, you can. In fact, you have to, since it ain't true.

 

No more far fetched than USB cables and improved SQ from disk drives and SD cards really. At what point does the unexplained become irrational to you? Do you feel you have enough of an understanding of time to decide

[Jud]

No more far fetched than USB cables and improved SQ from disk drives and SD cards really. At what point does the unexplained become irrational to you? Do you feel you have enough of an understanding of time to decide

 

After much reading and research, I've found some really good, experienced audio engineers and software developers, and these folks give rational explanations for what you've mentioned in the audio sphere. After much reading and research, I've found some really good, experienced scientists regarding science topics I'm interested in such as cosmology, relativity, quantum physics, evolution, climate change, and various branches of mathematics, and these folks give rational explanations mostly supporting the scientific/mathematical consensus (though particularly with regard to string theory and "the landscape" in cosmology, there are some quite rational and very interesting dissenters) and showing quite clearly why the kooks are kooks.

 

What I find here in terms of arguments over audio is that the real experts seldom take part in them. There's a reason for that (which, it seems to me, is that the non-experts at both ends of the spectrum are unaware of how much they don't know).

[Tony Lauck]

This is the most cogent answer to the thread's question that I've been able to find:

 

Monsanto Wants to Know Why People Doubt Science » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

[wakibaki]

After much reading and research, I've found some really good, experienced audio engineers and software developers, and these folks give rational explanations for what you've mentioned in the audio sphere. After much reading and research, I've found some really good, experienced scientists regarding science topics I'm interested in such as cosmology, relativity, quantum physics, evolution, climate change, and various branches of mathematics, and these folks give rational explanations mostly supporting the scientific/mathematical consensus (though particularly with regard to string theory and "the landscape" in cosmology, there are some quite rational and very interesting dissenters) and showing quite clearly why the kooks are kooks.

 

What I find here in terms of arguments over audio is that the real experts seldom take part in them. There's a reason for that (which, it seems to me, is that the non-experts at both ends of the spectrum are unaware of how much they don't know).

 

Rational explanations aren't worth a damn without evidence. You wouldn't know an expert if he bit you in the ass. Which he just did.

[Jud]

Rational explanations aren't worth a damn without evidence. You wouldn't know an expert if he bit you in the ass. Which he just did.

 

Plonk.

 

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet)

[Paul R]

AGW is true, you are right about that. But the verb "to engineer" implies thoughtful planning and deliberate action. Are you implying that global warming caused by burning of fossil fuels is deliberate?

 

By the way, would you describe this kind of environment as being engineered?

 

 

 

Yep. Stupidly engineered, but engineered just the same. And a clear warning that taking action without knowing what we are doing can and almost certainly will lead to unexpected, unpleasant, and unwanted consenquences.

 

So you feel that taking action, any action so long as it is some kind of action is the best thing to do. I can see that. I just do not agree with it.

[christopher3393]

Rational explanations aren't worth a damn without evidence. You wouldn't know an expert if he bit you in the ass. Which he just did.

 

Here's what I'm seeing :

 

[Audio_ELF]

Rational explanations aren't worth a damn without evidence. You wouldn't know an expert if he bit you in the ass. Which he just did.

 

Plonk.

 

Edit: Plonk (Usenet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well I kind of agree with wakibaki's first sentence ... Just a shame that it was followed up with troll bait.

 

On the first sentence he is right ... (And taking a step back in the process) if the sound is be affected by something upstream of the speakers, then the electrical signal going into the speakers must be different. You can measure anything you want in the computer, but if the DAC is designed to isolate from any changes then it's completely irrelevant.

 

So first step in "proof" that software, digital cables, etc. affect the sound quality is showing that there is a change at the output of the DAC. At a minimum you need a controlled listening test (please note I didn't say ABX or even blind test) to show that there is a statistical probability that there is a change.

 

A simple concept, but it appears something which is very difficult to achieve...

[Audio_ELF]

Yep. Stupidly engineered, but engineered just the same. And a clear warning that taking action without knowing what we are doing can and almost certainly will lead to unexpected, unpleasant, and unwanted consenquences.

 

So you feel that taking action, any action so long as it is some kind of action is the best thing to do. I can see that. I just do not agree with it.

I don't think people are advocating "just do something".

 

But if a river is polluted, you look at what is flowing into that river and prevent it. You don't carry on polluting it while you examine what steps could be taken to remove the pollutants do you!

 

So there is a high probability that burning fossil fuels is releasing gasses which are contributing towards global warming; so as a first step we start to reduce the amount of those gases being released!

[JR4321]

Plonk.

 

Edit: Plonk (Usenet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Now I had the exact opposite reaction. I'm really only interested in hearing opinions from "experts". I'd love to hear wakibaki's credentials.

 

Likewise, I'd love for you to share where you've found your audio experts. Please share.

[mmerrill99]

Well I kind of agree with wakibaki's first sentence ... Just a shame that it was followed up with troll bait.

 

On the first sentence he is right ... (And taking a step back in the process) if the sound is be affected by something upstream of the speakers, then the electrical signal going into the speakers must be different. You can measure anything you want in the computer, but if the DAC is designed to isolate from any changes then it's completely irrelevant.

 

So first step in "proof" that software, digital cables, etc. affect the sound quality is showing that there is a change at the output of the DAC. At a minimum you need a controlled listening test (please note I didn't say ABX or even blind test) to show that there is a statistical probability that there is a change.

 

A simple concept, but it appears something which is very difficult to achieve...

So, like Waki, when perfectly good, statistically significant evidence is presented you do you then accuse the listener/tester of dishonesty & make excuses that the test needs proctoring by someone he trusts? Or what do you consider meets the criteria you outlined in bold?