Debating

[pgrmdave]

While we may think it would be best for humanity if we were to force people to get vaccinated, we would lose something of greater value in doing it.

I would not enjoy living in the Orwellian world that may ensue if we were to take that most basic freedom away.

Wait, you see the greatest freedom as being bodily autonomy but not that of life? When your right to *anything* threatens my life, my competing right to be alive trumps your right to whatever-it-is. You cannot choose to threaten my life simply because you don't want government interference.

 

 

Because of this kind of logic, (There! We're even now.) it took twenty years for Einsteins theory of relativity to become widely accepted.

Nope! It took a long time because there wasn't evidence for it. There was a mathematical proof, sure. And it made sense with what people knew, of course. But until there was enough evidence that his model of the universe made more accurate predictions than previous models it didn't become the standard model to use (under certain circumstances. We still use simple velocity addition when we walk to the front of trains, because it's accurate enough). Science is not, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever *be* in the business of finding Truth and Fact. Science creates models to make predictions. That is all. It uses evidence from repeated and controlled measurements to predict measurements in the future. Science doesn't get "proven wrong" often at all - it "improves in accuracy". Read this essay to get a better understanding of how science works and why science changing from how it used to be isn't the problem that lay people tend to think it is.

 

I suggest that to understand reality -as much as is possible- we rely upon the whole of life's experiences rather than any single method.

Do you have evidence for that? Because I've got reams and reams of evidence that of all the many, many methods that we have of predicting the future science is the most accurate (and furthermore, that the "hard" sciences, which use the scientific method more rigorously, are more accurate than the "soft" sciences, which due to limitations of time/ethics/resources are unable to be quite as rigorous).

 

 

 

Once, it was impossible for us to fly.

Once, it was impossible to flip a switch and let there be light!

Our knowledge changes reality for us. Shouldn't we be -just a little bit- wary of that power?

Those were never facts. Those were engineering problems, not scientific limitations. We can say, for example, that it is impossible through addition of energy (that is, any means of propulsion) to travel faster than light travels through a vacuum. We can't say "it's impossible to build a dyson sphere", simply "it's really, really difficult to build a dyson sphere, and the economics don't work well".

 

We should stop trying to eradicate all that is not science.

No. I will tirelessly try to fight any form of magical thinking - any form of unreasoned reason where people attempt to force their mindset upon reality rather than reality upon their mind. I will continue to use evidence to change my thinking, and not consider *anything* to be above study. If a thing affects our universe, it can be measured. If it cannot be measured, it cannot affect our universe. If it cannot affect our universe, then it has no effect on our universe. If it can be measured, it can be studied and understood. These are the principles by which science seeks to understand how our universe works, and it's done a fine job of it so far. In all the writings of all the religions in all the world - none of them helped us understand anything so much as the simplest experiment in a controlled environment, published with a peer review process.

[Eclogite]

I am with you until your last paragraph. Science has yet to provide the insight offered by - as an example - this work by Dylan Thomas.

 

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

 

 

In 1966 a coal waste tip in Wales, in Aberfan, collapsed and engulfed a school. 116 children and 28 adults died. That poem was read by Sir Richard Burton, with his marvellous, resonant Welsh voice, in a memorial program broadcast on the BBC. Science tells us what to think. Poems like that, orators like Burton, tell us what to feel.

[pgrmdave]

 Poems like that, orators like Burton, tell us what to feel.

Nobody is suggesting that we make any predictions of how things work based off of poetry though.  Morality, ethics, laws, and all other sorts of man-made structures are impervious to science as they don't have a tangible presence (aside from their existence as ideas in neurological patterns, but those patterns are no more "morals" than the Mona Lisa is a person).

[PersonalPronoun]

Wait, you see the greatest freedom as being bodily autonomy but not that of life?

They seem the same to me. 

 

 

When your right to *anything* threatens my life, my competing right to be alive trumps your right to whatever-it-is.

Certainly. 

That might not be true if we were brothers, or if we lived in a small society together. Worked side by side, shared life goals, loved the same people.

You illustrate my point wonderfully.

 

 

You cannot choose to threaten my life simply because you don't want government interference.

I'm not a disease. I have threatened no ones life. 

 

to get a better understanding of how science works and why science changing from how it used to be isn't the problem that lay people tend to think it is.

There's a raging debate going on now thats been going on for several years and has cost countless money, and fear. 

 It's about climate change. 

Just minutes ago I was emailed this article from a friend....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

 

Tell me, who do I trust? Is it the guy who wrote this article?

Is it the USGS? The president? 

 

I assure you, these are concerns to a lay person like myself.

 

No. I will tirelessly try to fight any form of magical thinking - any form of unreasoned reason where people attempt to force their mindset upon reality rather than reality upon their mind. I will continue to use evidence to change my thinking, and not consider *anything* to be above study.

 If a thing affects our universe, it can be measured. 

If it cannot be measured, it cannot affect our universe.

If it cannot affect our universe, then it has no effect on our universe. If it can be measured, it can be studied and understood. These are the principles by which science seeks to understand how our universe works, and it's done a fine job of it so far. In all the writings of all the religions in all the world - none of them helped us understand anything so much as the simplest experiment in a controlled environment, published with a peer review process.

I've heard this before. 

I think it went something like:

 

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the [reality] except through me."

[pgrmdave]

There's a raging debate going on now thats been going on for several years and has cost countless money, and fear. 

 It's about climate change. 

Just minutes ago I was emailed this article from a friend....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

No, there isn't a debate. There's almost no debate. The science - the actual, published, researched, reviewed science is relatively settled (there *are* actual questions that the scientific community has not reached a general consensus on regarding climate change, but it is well established that temperatures are rising overall, that the temperatures are rising faster than they have in past timeperiods, and that human activity is the greatest contributor to the rising temperatures).

 

Tell me, who do I trust? Is it the guy who wrote this article?

Is it the USGS? The president?

You trust the peer reviewed articles to the degree to which they are supported by the evidence and nothing else. You trust the experts, not the people reporting on the experts.

 

I assure you, these are concerns to a lay person like myself.

It's very simple - trust people who have specific expertise in the subject. Don't trust yourself unless you have specific expertise in the subject. Don't trust science articles - read the actual papers. If you can't understand the paper, read the abstract and the conclusion, and try to take a course or two on statistics to better understand the math.

 

I've heard this before. 

I think it went something like:

 

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the [reality] except through me."

This is an excellent example! There are two (well, there are many, but we'll focus on just the two) competing theories as to how the universe functions - Christianity and science. Between the two of them, science makes the more explicit and more accurate predictions. Between the two of them, science comes out the clear winner (science is what has allowed engineers to build the modern world - its accuracy is borne out every time you boot up a computer, use a GPS, drive a car, listen to a weather report, etc.). Christianity, on the other hand, has not made any specific predictions nor has it been significantly more accurate than other non-science predictive models.

[Eclogite]

It is not the function of religion to make predictions. Nor is it the function of science to establish spiritual values. You are performing a comparison equivalent to saying I have tried scuba diving with flippers on my feet and with copies of War and Peace on my feet. I have found the flippers to be a greater aid to swimming than the Dostoevsky.

[pgrmdave]

It is not the function of religion to make predictions. Nor is it the function of science to establish spiritual values. You are performing a comparison equivalent to saying I have tried scuba diving with flippers on my feet and with copies of War and Peace on my feet. I have found the flippers to be a greater aid to swimming than the Dostoevsky.

And yet people will make predictions based on religion - things like "praying will heal my sickness (or have any other tangible effect)". Or "if I'm a good person then I will experience everlasting joy". If religion was understood to have as much tangible effect on the world as, say, Dickens then yes - I'd be perfectly okay with people reading fiction novels. Going to church would be like cosplay! That'd be fine. Establishing moral values is neat, but religion doesn't seem to have been a particularly good vehicle for it - especially where there are competing religions within a society.

[PersonalPronoun]

No, there isn't a debate. There's almost no debate. The science - the actual, published, researched, reviewed science is relatively settled (there *are* actual questions that the scientific community has not reached a general consensus on regarding climate change, but it is well established that temperatures are rising overall, that the temperatures are rising faster than they have in past timeperiods, and that human activity is the greatest contributor to the rising temperatures).

As it happens I am convinced that global warming is happening, and that we humans are largely responsible.

I'd like to tell you -without the metaphors- why I am convinced.

 

I first started really paying attention to global warming

in 2006 after I saw Al Gore's movie. 

When I say "paying attention," I mean that I began to collect every thing about the topic of global warming that came to me through the natural course of being alive. 

 

One day, I would read a story from a school teacher who talked about how certain plants in his garden had always told him when summer was coming to an end, and it was time to start preparing for school. 

However, his plants had been changing their grow cycle.

They were blooming later, and no longer matched his school schedule. 

Then someone on tv would talk about how their towns grave yard was getting smaller year after year as the ocean took over the land.

 

Another day, I would read a science article about land rebound.

Since the glaciers had been going north, there was less weight in the middle of the continent.

So, the middle was rebounding, which was pushing down on the outer edges of the continent. 

Man, there's all kinds of possible connections in that one.

If its true, it might explain why the land is sinking into the ocean at the grave yard. 

It would lend support to global warming.

 it also gives supporting evidence for plate tectonics.

Does rebound have something to do with the mega-earth quakes we've had in the last few years? 

Then I see an article claiming that the ring of fire's volcanoes are getting more active. 

 

I notice things.

I see how many of the axioms of science do indeed carry on into other parts of life.

The uncertainty principle, for instance, is expressed (with different words, and imagery,) in pretty much any aspect of life. So I believe it's a true theory. 

The forces of nature, are mirrored in all of the aspects of life. 

Mirrored in art.

Mirrored in deed.

Mirrored in social interactions. 

Mirrored in other species social interactions, with each other and with us. 

So I believe in gravity.

 

Something is wrong with our understanding of gravity though. 

I don't know what it is yet, but there are things related to gravity in other aspects of life that are not yet mirrored in science. 

I have no doubt in my mind that it will, in time, become mirrored in science.

I don't think dark matter is going to be the next axiom though.

I can't tell you why yet, but I think it has something to do with time. 

I've been collecting information about that too.

 

So, earlier when I said I rely on the whole of life's experiences to provide me with a picture of reality, I meant all of life's experiences. 

 

I don't think this thing I'm talking about is "magical thinking" of any sort. 

In fact, the thing I am talking about is an expression of the scientific method. 

I collect data. 

I experiment.

I predict. 

Then I wait for everyone else to catch up. 

Or sometimes it's the other way around. 

I hear the theory first, then I collect data, then I catch up.

 

The funniest thing is, I agree with most of the big conclusions that science comes to, but it's because my own experience bear out those conclusions.

This, in my opinion, is what "the proof is in the pudding" really means.

 

If my experiences do not bear it out, then those are the things I debate about. 

My experiences tell me that science is a very powerful tool in the carpenter's shed, but there are other tools in there that work better for other jobs.

You can cut a two by four in half with a claw hammer, but a saw works better for that. 

 

(you will have to just excuse the metaphors at the end of that.) 

 

 

Now:

 

You say your self preservation trumps mine, and claim that my irresponsibility in my beliefs about science are what is putting you in danger?

You believe it's ok to force me to share in your belief?

 

My counter claim is that you are threatening me with your belief the same way that Christianity threatens everyone else with their messages of hell-fire and damnation. 

You don't use the same language they do, but the action is still the same.

If I don't live like you live, I am wrong, and that mistake will somehow injure me. 

 

And that's one of the pieces of data that tells me science is missing out on something important.

Just like I am, and just like religion is, and just like any other social community in human life. 

 

You trust the experts not the people reporting on the experts.It's, very simple - trust people who have specific expertise in the subject. Don't trust yourself unless you have specific expertise in the subject.

I think reality itself has all of the expertise on the subject, and I think it's provided me with the tools I need to understand what I need to understand. 

One of those tools is debating with you.

 

Im paying attention.

[Eclogite]

The reasons you give for being convinced of global warming are trite, anecdotal and wholly inadequate as evidence for global warming. Specifically:

 

1. Variations in local climate are natural frequent and damn near universal. The teacher's observations about their garden may be related to global warming, but fail utterly as sound evidence.

2. The rebound is related to removal of the ice and has been in process for thousands of years. If we see significant loss of ice from Greenland and Antarctica then we can expect them to also experience rebound. However, the rebound currently seen has nothing to do with global warming.

3. Loss of coastal land is commonplace due to simple erosion, regardless of rises or falls in sea level. Your graveyard example is almost certainly unrelated to global warming.

 

If you are finding weak and irrelevant examples like this as "the proof of the pudding" then you have very little idea about how science is conducted. If you wish to see the evidence for global warming then please study the publications of the IPCC and the references contained theirin.

 

I apologise if I am coming across as patronising, but it is clear that you have a distorted picture of both the findings of science and - more importantly - the scientific method.
 

The funniest thing is, I agree with most of the big conclusions that science comes to, but it's because my own experience bear out those conclusions

 

In science your experience is not worth a damn. Nor is mine. Nor is that of Steven Hawkins. What matters are quantitative observations, independently replicated.

 

 

Something is wrong with our understanding of gravity though.

Since I am reasonably certain you do not understand gravity I doubt you have identified a flaw in our understanding of it. But, I'll bite. What is this flaw?

 

 

You say your self preservation trumps mine, and claim that my irresponsibility in my beliefs about science are what is putting you in danger?
You believe it's ok to force me to share in your belief?

Absolutely not. You can believe what the hell you like, but you should not be permitted to put the lives of others in danger because of your ignorant beliefs.

 

My counter claim is that you are threatening me with your belief the same way that Christianity threatens everyone else with their messages of hell-fire and damnation. 
You don't use the same language they do, but the action is still the same.
If I don't live like you live, I am wrong, and that mistake will somehow injure me.

Bollocks. The value of vaccination has been established through multiple studies and analysis, it is not based on ancient myth or divine revelation. By choosing not to vaccinate you are placing the lives of others in danger: ignorant, selfish and arrogant. You are happy to see restrictions on speeding in a residential area because you understand that could be dangerous. But because you lack any grasp of how science is conducted you think it is OK to reject vaccination because you don't understand the science behind it.

 

Im paying attention

 

I hope so, for you have a hell of a lot to learn.

[PersonalPronoun]

The reasons you give for being convinced of global warming are trite, anecdotal and wholly inadequate as evidence for global warming. Specifically:

 

If you are finding weak and irrelevant examples like this as "the proof of the pudding" then you have very little idea about how science is conducted. If you wish to see the evidence for global warming then please study the publications of the IPCC and the references contained theirin.

 

I apologise if I am coming across as patronising, but it is clear that you have a distorted picture of both the findings of science and - more importantly - the scientific method.

You do come across as patronizing, however I take no offense.

I'm aware that I come across as patronizing myself.

And, I feel as justified in my views as you do in yours.

Feel free to come across any way you like, and I'll feel free to do the same.

With that understanding, we can get along just fine.

 

I have a distorted view of everything. You're a big fat liar, if you say that you do not.

I used the examples I used only to answer the basic question that you guys were asking me.

To show that there are other ways to think, that are not equal to anarchy, or religion, or magical thinking.

My deficiencies are different from yours, but you have them.

Your blinders are made out of the exact same material as mine are.

 

I was not unaware of the scorn you were going to have of my examples.

I'm not unaware that there's no evidence I could provide to you -that does not come from science-, that would convince you of the validity of my life's experience.

I'm ok with that.

It's unlikely that we do this for the same reasons.

 

In science your experience is not worth a damn. Nor is mine. Nor is that of Steven Hawkins. What matters are quantitative observations, independently replicated.

Yeah, I get it. You can't take your blinders off any more than I can mine.

 

So let me ask you:

 

Don't you want your experience to be worth something?

I do. That's why I do not live in science.

I can't see the trees for the forest, you can't see the forest for the trees.

 

Since I am reasonably certain you do not understand gravity I doubt you have identified a flaw in our understanding of it. But, I'll bite. What is this flaw?

I said I don't know. But spare a smile for me when you discover that I was right.

I'm not a mechanic either, but I can hear it when the engine of my car is not running right.

 

 

Absolutely not. You can believe what the hell you like, but you should not be permitted to put the lives of others in danger because of your ignorant beliefs.

Nor should you.

The difference is that I am not purposely doing it.

You are.

 

Bollocks. The value of vaccination has been established through multiple studies and analysis, it is not based on ancient myth or divine revelation. By choosing not to vaccinate you are placing the lives of others in danger: ignorant, selfish and arrogant. You are happy to see restrictions on speeding in a residential area because you understand that could be dangerous. But because you lack any grasp of how science is conducted you think it is OK to reject vaccination because you don't understand the science behind it.

As it happens I don't have any issue with vaccinations.

If you go back and read carefully, you'll see that I did not speak against vaccinations at any point.

I've made it clear in various ways, that I am arguing for rights that you wish to take away from me and others.

From the very beginning I have been arguing about the right to choose.

 

I chose to start getting vaccinations, every year, about a decade or so ago.

I had a talk with my doctor about them. Asked what I needed to know, then I did the things I do, and came to the conclusion that vaccinations were the best thing for me.

 

It's at this point where you cross over from merely patronzing, to the exact ignorance, selfishness, and arrogance that you accuse me of.

You never even bothered to ask me if I've been vaccinated, or even how I feel about vaccinations.

You simply assumed, that because I think differently than you do, I have some evil intent towards you and the rest of society.

You did not, in your own thoughts, give me the opportunity to come to the same conclusion you came to, by my own right.

Instead, because I expressed a right to choose for myself, you automatically assumed that I was incompetent and unworthy to do so.

 

I hope so, for you have a hell of a lot to learn.

Yes I do.

 

I have not seen you, but I doubt that you have a golden halo floating above your head that signifies your special position in the ranks of humanity, or that you have some special knowledge that elevates you to lofty heights.

You're just a person, or a rock, or whatever.

 

Unless you think you already know everything, you have a hell of a lot to learn as well.

Edited February 11, 2015 by PersonalPronoun

[pgrmdave]

I first started really paying attention to global warming

in 2006 after I saw Al Gore's movie.

which is a documentary, and not science. Al Gore is not an expert in any science, and while some of the people quoted in the film may be experts you are much better served going to the source (the papers published) than listening to them filtered through the editorializing of a documentary.

 

When I say "paying attention," I mean that I began to collect every thing about the topic of global warming that came to me through the natural course of being alive.

This is a good way to introduce all sorts of biases into your data and end up with a less accurate understanding of a situation. 

 

One day, I would read a story from a school teacher who talked about how certain plants in his garden had always told him when summer was coming to an end, and it was time to start preparing for school. 

However, his plants had been changing their grow cycle.

They were blooming later, and no longer matched his school schedule. 

Then someone on tv would talk about how their towns grave yard was getting smaller year after year as the ocean took over the land.

Anecdata isn't reliable nor is it statistically sound.

 

Another day, I would read a science article about land rebound.

Since the glaciers had been going north, there was less weight in the middle of the continent.

So, the middle was rebounding, which was pushing down on the outer edges of the continent. 

Man, there's all kinds of possible connections in that one.

If its true, it might explain why the land is sinking into the ocean at the grave yard.

That's an interesting thought, but you can't end there. It might explain why the land is now lower than sea level. There might be other explanations. Without designing experiments to rule out other possibilities and to isolate and determine the cause you are no closer to understanding why it's happening.

 

I see how many of the axioms of science do indeed carry on into other parts of life.

The uncertainty principle, for instance, is expressed (with different words, and imagery,) in pretty much any aspect of life.

Do you often find yourself measuring the position of an atom so precisely that you can't measure its velocity? Because that's the only thing the uncertainty principle is about. It has nothing to do with "observing something changes it" and everything to do with the behavior of elementary particles. The human mind is great at seeing patterns where there are none, so don't confuse seeing patterns with there being a relationship.

 

The forces of nature, are mirrored in all of the aspects of life. 

Mirrored in art.

Mirrored in deed.

Mirrored in social interactions. 

Mirrored in other species social interactions, with each other and with us. 

So I believe in gravity.

Again, this is pattern recognition. It's pretty much where science was for a long time (Aristotle was a big proponent of it) but we've since learned that it's a very inaccurate way of building models to make predictions.

 

 

Something is wrong with our understanding of gravity though. 

I don't know what it is yet, but there are things related to gravity in other aspects of life that are not yet mirrored in science. 

I have no doubt in my mind that it will, in time, become mirrored in science.

I don't think dark matter is going to be the next axiom though.

I can't tell you why yet, but I think it has something to do with time. 

I've been collecting information about that too.

Have you considered reading the papers and learning the math involved? Just a suggestion, if you're interested in gravity maybe you should learn what we already know about gravity.

 

I don't think this thing I'm talking about is "magical thinking" of any sort. 

In fact, the thing I am talking about is an expression of the scientific method. 

I collect data. 

I experiment.

I predict. 

Then I wait for everyone else to catch up. 

Or sometimes it's the other way around. 

I hear the theory first, then I collect data, then I catch up.

You've got the scientific method backwards. First you make a predictions. Then you conduct an isolated experiment to try to prove your theory wrong. Then you collect the data from the experiment and see how accurate your prediction was. Sometimes you collect data first to see if there's a prediction you can make (i.e. "It looks like a lot of people living underneath electrical wires seem to suffer from a particular cancer") then you set up an experiment ("Knowing that radiation can cause cancer I suspect that the wires are not properly shielded and are releasing some form of radiation. To test that, I'll place instruments to gather total radiation in the area in multiple locations, including under electrical wires and not under electrical wires. If my theory is wrong then the total radiation over time will not be significantly different under the wires compared to not under the wires.") then you collect the data from that experiment and see what's up. There are some issues that arise when you do things in a different order, most notably giving your experiment too many axis of freedom. Let's say that instead of doing it that way, you decided to collect health data from people who live under wires vs. people who don't, and you want to see if there are any statistically significant deviations. Turns out that of the 10,000 illnesses you looked at, 3 of them are statistically higher in people who live under wires and 2 of them are lower. What does that tell you? It tells you nothing. You would expect that given enough potential illnesses that some of them would turn out to be higher or lower (in other words, there's an expectation of a bell curve in the bell curves). There was no control in the experiment, so while there is a pattern and it is statistically significant you cannot draw any meaningful conclusion from it. The best you could say is that there is some indication that you may want a further study on specifically those illnesses. You always have to make the prediction before the experiment.

 

 

If my experiences do not bear it out, then those are the things I debate about. 

My experiences tell me that science is a very powerful tool in the carpenter's shed, but there are other tools in there that work better for other jobs.

Science is the most accurate tool we have for making predictions about our universe. Nothing else has anything close to the track record that science does.

 

You can cut a two by four in half with a claw hammer, but a saw works better for that. 

 

(you will have to just excuse the metaphors at the end of that.)

(don't worry, my own metaphors are pretty horrible)

 

 

You say your self preservation trumps mine, and claim that my irresponsibility in my beliefs about science are what is putting you in danger?

You believe it's ok to force me to share in your belief?

No, I don't think that I can force you to share in my belief. Only to force you to take actions that have been proven to keep those around you from dying. You can choose to believe whatever you want, but vaccination is still something that should be mandatory.

 

My counter claim is that you are threatening me with your belief the same way that Christianity threatens everyone else with their messages of hell-fire and damnation. 

You don't use the same language they do, but the action is still the same.

If I don't live like you live, I am wrong, and that mistake will somehow injure me.

There are some specific differences, but it mostly comes down to this - if your actions result in someone's death, you don't have a right to them. If your inaction results in someone's death, you don't have a right to it (homicide and negligent homicide).

 

And that's one of the pieces of data that tells me science is missing out on something important.

Just like I am, and just like religion is, and just like any other social community in human life.

Science is not a social community. It is an assumption (that induction is possible) that allows us to study the universe and the things contained within in order to make increasingly accurate predictions about the behavior of those things.

 

 

 

I have a distorted view of everything. You're a big fat liar, if you say that you do not.

I used the examples I used only to answer the basic question that you guys were asking me.

To show that there are other ways to think, that are not equal to anarchy, or religion, or magical thinking.

My deficiencies are different from yours, but you have them.

Your blinders are made out of the exact same material as mine are.

I am not science. I am not logic. Arguing that I have biases doesn't argue against science any more than pointing out that there are abusive priests argues against Christianity. The fact is that science and its method of studying the universe is designed to eliminate biases, and where they're not eliminated to correct them over time through peer review and repeatable studies. No other system of prediction has that self-correction and skepticism designed to systemically reduce and eliminate bias.

 

 

I was not unaware of the scorn you were going to have of my examples.

I'm not unaware that there's no evidence I could provide to you -that does not come from science-, that would convince you of the validity of my life's experience.

I'm ok with that.

It's unlikely that we do this for the same reasons.

Your life experience is perfectly valid for the study of your life experience. This comes up a lot with people in under-privileged groups talking to those in privileged groups - the life experience of someone who is disadvantaged is valid as an example of someone who has a disadvantaged life. But it is *not* valid to take ones life experience and push it on others. It's not okay to think that your life experience is representative of anybody but you. Your life is a terrible guide for scientific understanding for the same reason - you cannot generalize from your specific experiences to general principles of the universe. Only through isolated and controlled experiments where the variables can be controlled can we generalize well. This becomes more evident as we see the predictive value of experiments increase with more isolation of variables.

 

Don't you want your experience to be worth something?

I do. That's why I do not live in science.

My experience is worth whatever I want it to be worth. I don't need anything to validate me or my worth.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan

 

 

It's at this point where you cross over from merely patronzing, to the exact ignorance, selfishness, and arrogance that you accuse me of.

You never even bothered to ask me if I've been vaccinated, or even how I feel about vaccinations.

You simply assumed, that because I think differently than you do, I have some evil intent towards you and the rest of society.

You did not, in your own thoughts, give me the opportunity to come to the same conclusion you came to, by my own right.

Instead, because I expressed a right to choose for myself, you automatically assumed that I was incompetent and unworthy to do so.

I never assumed you were unvaccinated, or that you denied the efficacy of vaccines. But your legal arguments are poor (and the Supreme Court would agree with me, as they did in Jacobson v. Massachusetts). In any case, legal arguments and scientific arguments have about as much in common as oil and the original Star Wars 1977 release.

 

 

I have not seen you, but I doubt that you have a golden halo floating above your head that signifies your special position in the ranks of humanity, or that you have some special knowledge that elevates you to lofty heights.

You're just a person, or a rock, or whatever.

 

Unless you think you already know everything, you have a hell of a lot to learn as well.

And reliably, the scientific method has been shown to be the most accurate way in which to study the universe. I have no claim to the truth of the world - but that doesn't have anything to do with the accuracy of scientific predictions.

[Eclogite]

pgrmdave has made an almost perfect response to your various points. There is one item with in which I differ from him. You said:

 

As it happens I don't have any issue with vaccinations.
If you go back and read carefully, you'll see that I did not speak against vaccinations at any point.
I've made it clear in various ways, that I am arguing for rights that you wish to take away from me and others.
From the very beginning I have been arguing about the right to choose.

1. Well, your statement is - at best - ambiguous. You do have an issue with vaccinations, specifically making them mandatory. You may claim that being opposed to vaccinations is different from being opposed to them being required, but in this thread vaccinations has been used as a shorthand form of opposed to vaccinations.

2. Your comments throughout the thread carry a strong implication that you are opposed to vaccinations.

3. If I have to "read carefully" what you have written in order to understand it then you have not been clear. Responsibility for comprehension rests more with the writer than with the reader.

 

I chose to start getting vaccinations, every year, about a decade or so ago.
I had a talk with my doctor about them. Asked what I needed to know, then I did the things I do, and came to the conclusion that vaccinations were the best thing for me

What vaccinations are you talking about? It sounds as if you are referring to the annual flu jab. That is not the implied focus of this discussion. We are, or certainly I have been, talking about MMR vaccinations given to young children.

 

You never even bothered to ask me if I've been vaccinated, or even how I feel about vaccinations.

Trite nonsense. Your opinion on vaccinations is clear: people should have the right to choose whether or not they take them (or have them administered to their children). It is that selfish belief that I object to. And just so you are clear, it is selfish because it places the lives of others in danger.

 

Instead, because I expressed a right to choose for myself, you automatically assumed that I was incompetent and unworthy to do so.

 There was no assumption. I insisting upon the right to choose, you insist that your freedom of choice is more important than the lives of others. That is demonstrably selfish. I require no assumptions to arrive at that conclusion.

 

And now some other points:

 

I have not seen you, but I doubt that you have a golden halo floating above your head that signifies your special position in the ranks of humanity, or that you have some special knowledge that elevates you to lofty heights.
You're just a person, or a rock, or whatever.

And that is precisely why I make extensive use of science, the scientific method and the work of scientists, to gain a better understanding of the world and so make well informed decisions. Science is not my only source of input for those decisions, but it underpins many of them. I do not rely, as you have told us you do, on non-statistical, anecdotes on which to base your decisions. And that is something really rather big you have to learn, that I - and pgrmdave - are trying to teach you.

 

I am confident that pgrmdave will not mind me saying that he and I are small people, but to adapt Newton's famous expression: our ability to see something of the majesty of the universe is not down to our skills, or intellect, but because we are standing on the shoulders of giants. Unlike Newton we have not seen even a little further than others, but that we can see at all we owe to those giants.

[PersonalPronoun]

This is a good way to introduce all sorts of biases into your data and end up with a less accurate understanding of a situation. 

How accurate does our understanding of global warming have to be, before we feel it's ok to do the right things?

 

Because while we wait for science to give us the final word, we continue to cut down the rain forests. 

We continue to chemically pollute the air with our factories. 

We continue to pollute the ground with our disastrous oil spills.

We continue to cause damage by fracking.

We continue to pile up used fuel rods into overfilled pools of water that are completely reliant upon electricity. 

 

This is not random bitching. It's got to be obvious that all of our environmentally poor actions have added up to the situation we find ourselves in. 

We don't need years of study to know that our activity has gotten out of hand. 

 

Anecdata isn't reliable nor is it statistically sound.

And yet, we survived all of human history -up to recent times- with only that.

 

If we agree that humans are responsible for global warming, then what exactly are we doing to make that happen?

But wait! The answer to that question doesn't really matter just now.

The one that really matters is: When did our actions begin to cause this global issue?

 

The answer is: Only very recently, geologically speaking. 

Only a very small part of the time humans have existed.

Do you see why thats the more important question?

 

It's not just the conclusions of science that I am wary of, but also our wisdom in our use of those conclusions. 

I need not have a scientific study in order to see, that we use those conclusions with little or no foresight or responsibility to our future. 

 

Who vaccinates the future against our poor decisions? 

 

Again, this is pattern recognition. It's pretty much where science was for a long time (Aristotle was a big proponent of it) but we've since learned that it's a very inaccurate way of building models to make predictions.

And yet, I say again: It was good enough to bring us to where We are. 

 

No, I don't think that I can force you to share in my belief. Only to force you to take actions that have been proven to keep those around you from dying. 

It comes down to this: If you take away my right to choose, then you take away my ability to figure out the right thing, and do it. 

You make me, and the rest of society into perpetual children who must rely on science and government to tell us what is right.

 

Have you considered how differently people, might feel about vaccinations if there weren't so many angry people demanding for them to do it? 

Simply put, there's less resistance where there's less force.

If I'm sitting here trying to decide whether or not to get my children vaccinated, and someone angrily demands that I do it "or else," then what do you think is going to happen?

 That force seems somehow suspect. 

 

How do you justify the attitude that your survival imperative trumps mine, while at the same time demanding that i put your survival imperative above my own?

 

You can choose to believe whatever you want, but vaccination is still something that should be mandatory.

There are some specific differences, but it mostly comes down to this - if your actions result in someone's death, you don't have a right to them. If your inaction results in someone's death, you don't have a right to it (homicide and negligent homicide).

So how do you test to determine if the vaccination situation is really negligence of reasonability, or if it's due to some kind of physiological or psychological inability to trust authority?

Because it seems that the only test you guys are doing is the, 

"if people don't do what I'm sure they should do, then they are doing wrong," test. 

 

 I am not science. I am not logic. Arguing that I have biases doesn't argue against science any more than pointing out that there are abusive priests argues against Christianity.

No, it argues pfor the fact that you can attach too much importance to one thing over another thing based on those biases.

Were alternatives to vaccinations studied? 

 

"What evidence indicates that homeoprophylaxis actually works?"

http://www.thevaccinealternative.com/

 

Why do you not mention possible alternatives to vaccinations, when you berate people for not getting vaccinated?

 

It's suspect when some one is continually demanding that they have the only viable solution to a problem.

 

Really? There's only one responsible action we have, and only science can lead to it? 

("I am the way.......")

 

 

Your life experience is perfectly valid for the study of your life experience. This comes up a lot with people in under-privileged groups talking to those in privileged groups - the life experience of someone who is disadvantaged is valid as an example of someone who has a disadvantaged life. But it is *not* valid to take ones life experience and push it on others. It's not okay to think that your life experience is representative of anybody but you.

 

 

But it's valid to decide how people should live based only on the conclusions of science?

 

My experience is worth whatever I want it to be worth. I don't need anything to validate me or my worth.

I said that in response to Eclogite, who said that my experiences mean nothing to science. 

 

(By the way, I don't believe that either. 

We, as a natural part of the universe do indeed have effects on reality. ) 

 

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." -Heisenberg

[Eclogite]

How accurate does our understanding of global warming have to be, before we feel it's ok to do the right things?

 

Because while we wait for science to give us the final word, we continue to cut down the rain forests. 

We continue to chemically pollute the air with our factories. 

We continue to pollute the ground with our disastrous oil spills.

We continue to cause damage by fracking.

We continue to pile up used fuel rods into overfilled pools of water that are completely reliant upon electricity.

Now you are talking unmitigated crap.

 

Science has given some definitive answers on global warming: it is real, it is significant, it has a large man-made element.

 

Scientists have been screaming for decades about the dangers of cutting down the rain forests.

Scienctist have been screaming for decades about the danger of chemical pollution.

Scientists have damn all to do with oil spills or fracking, except as far as they quantify the impact and offer remedial solutions.

Scientists are not responsible for the bad decisions of politicians pandering to your demand as a consumer for inexpensive power.

[PersonalPronoun]

Now you are talking unmitigated crap.

And you are trying to make science out to be a clear browed toddler who is trying to convince mommy that his hand wasn't really in the cookie jar.

 

Science has given some definitive answers on global warming: it is real, it is significant, it has a large man-made element.

I've already agreed to this.

 

Scientists are not responsible for the bad decisions of politicians pandering to your demand as a consumer for inexpensive power.

Right, so science is guiltless in all this.

No.

Scientists could say no.

Nobody in the world knows more than scientists how much trouble we're in, and how quickly we got in it, and how short a time we have to fix it.

They could refuse research money that does not have something to do with fixing the problem.

They could stop doing research for private companies that use that research irresponsibly.

They could refuse to create the technologies that they know will add to the problem.

The super-league of concerned scientists could do something more than write a stern warning to humanity.

The things those minds are capable of staggers the imagination, and all they can come up with is a stern warning to humanity?

Bullshit!

 

Tell me: How often in history have the greatest minds of science come together for a common goal and failed that goal?

Not very often right?

You want me to think science is something special?

That it is something that should be elevated above all the rest of us?

Then let it do something special.

After that, when ever science tries to tell me it has the best solution for this or that, I'll pay special attention.

Scientists are a part of the human race, they bear the same blame and responsibility as anyone else.

Edited February 12, 2015 by PersonalPronoun

[pgrmdave]

How accurate does our understanding of global warming have to be, before we feel it's ok to do the right things?

 

Because while we wait for science to give us the final word, we continue to cut down the rain forests. 

We continue to chemically pollute the air with our factories. 

We continue to pollute the ground with our disastrous oil spills.

We continue to cause damage by fracking.

We continue to pile up used fuel rods into overfilled pools of water that are completely reliant upon electricity.

Science is morally neutral. Global warming isn't a "problem" in science, it's a "phenomenon". It's simply something that is happening, and we've found the causes and made predictions about what will happen in the future. Science has no moral authority one way or the other, it is merely an incredibly accurate system for making predictions. Science can tell us that cities will be underwater, or that our air will be thick enough with certain particles that our lifespans will be shortened. Science can be used to test ways to change those predictions, but science as a study doesn't care. Scientists might, as they are also people. People being informed by science might. But the science has nothing to do with the result.

 

This is not random bitching. It's got to be obvious that all of our environmentally poor actions have added up to the situation we find ourselves in. 

We don't need years of study to know that our activity has gotten out of hand.

We do need study to know what activities, how they've changed things, what they're changing, what the likely effects are, what the effects of the effects are, and how we can slow, stop, or reverse the trends.

 

And yet, we survived all of human history -up to recent times- with only that [Anecdata].

Well, sure. It's definitely good enough to survive on. It's just not good enough to, I dunno, build a smartphone that communicates with multiple satellites with. Science is absolutely, 100% unnecessary for survival. Survival doesn't even require being right about things! If I think that lightning is caused by a sky god, my life or death is not going to be changed. What does survival have to do with accuracy of predictions?

 

If we agree that humans are responsible for global warming, then what exactly are we doing to make that happen?

But wait! The answer to that question doesn't really matter just now.

Of course it does! Let's assume that you know that global temperatures are rising. Let's even assume that you know that people are responsible. If that's all you know then you don't know how, and you don't know why. You don't know what's going on. If your goal is to make a prediction (science) then you'll fail because you won't be able to factor the causes into your model. If your goal is to work to change global warming (engineering) then you'll fail because you'll have no idea what people are doing to cause it. Maybe it's people using electricity. Maybe it's simply an increase in population. Maybe it's too many people burping. Maybe it's because we have fewer factories. Maybe it's because we have more factories. Without knowing anything else, you can't say with any degree of certainty what's going on.

 

The one that really matters is: When did our actions begin to cause this global issue?

 

The answer is: Only very recently, geologically speaking.

Prove it (or, rather, show evidence that this is true. Science doesn't prove anything - it simply provides more and more evidence for what is most likely).

 

 

 

It's not just the conclusions of science that I am wary of, but also our wisdom in our use of those conclusions. 

I need not have a scientific study in order to see, that we use those conclusions with little or no foresight or responsibility to our future.

Take that up with engineering - science doesn't build anything, science doesn't change anything, science doesn't produce anything - science makes predictions and ends there.

 

 

And yet, I say again: It [pattern recognition] was good enough to bring us to where We are.

No, it wasn't. It was science that got us to where we are. It wasn't basic and unconsidered pattern recognition that let engineers build the gasoline engine, or electricity, or semi-conductors, or lasers, or satellites, or LEDs, or 3-d printing, or cellular phones, or any myriad of things which we're able to take for granted now.

 

It comes down to this: If you take away my right to choose, then you take away my ability to figure out the right thing, and do it. 

You make me, and the rest of society into perpetual children who must rely on science and government to tell us what is right.

Okay, but if people choose to put others around them in danger, we simply won't allow them into our society. Living in a society is always a balance of rights. In any case, legally this is already settled in the US. I'm not sure why you think there's anything to even discuss here.

 

 

 

How do you justify the attitude that your survival imperative trumps mine, while at the same time demanding that i put your survival imperative above my own?

You're put in no mortal danger from a vaccine. You put others in mortal danger by not being vaccinated. Your "survival imperative" is never infringed upon because nobody is ever making you do something that would lead to you not surviving.

 

 

So how do you test to determine if the vaccination situation is really negligence of reasonability, or if it's due to some kind of physiological or psychological inability to trust authority?

Because it seems that the only test you guys are doing is the, 

"if people don't do what I'm sure they should do, then they are doing wrong," test.

If a parent doesn't care for their child medically, they are being negligent. It doesn't matter what the reason is, it is medically negligent. And the test has nothing to do with what I, or Eclogite, think and everything to do with the evidence. My thoughts don't enter the equation - only the evidence.

 

 

 

"What evidence indicates that homeoprophylaxis actually works?"

http://www.thevaccinealternative.com/

Homeopathy has repeatedly been shown to be as effective as a placebo. Vaccines have routinely been shown to be more effective than a placebo. Vaccines are the more efficient, more effective, and safer way to immunize a population.

 

Why do you not mention possible alternatives to vaccinations, when you berate people for not getting vaccinated?

Because vaccines work. Something which you already agree with and understand. Vaccines not only work, but they work very well (for the diseases for which we've found effective vaccines and yes I realize that's perfectly circular reasoning). The alternatives don't work as well.

 

It's suspect when some one is continually demanding that they have the only viable solution to a problem.

The cool thing is that it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what you think, or what I think, or how suspicious or strange it is. It only matters what the evidence is and how strong it is.

[pgrmdave]

Nobody in the world knows more than scientists how much trouble we're in, and how quickly we got in it, and how short a time we have to fix it.

Correct, because science remains the best way to make predictions about the future, so scientists have a better view of the future than anybody else.

 

They could refuse research money that does not have something to do with fixing the problem.

Science doesn't fix problems - it makes predictions about the future. That's all. Those predictions can then be used by engineers to fix problems, or make problems, or make money, or lose money. Science remains neutral.

 

 

They could stop doing research for private companies that use that research irresponsibly.

So long as their research is published, it doesn't matter who paid for it. The evidence will stand or fall on its own. If the private companies aren't publishing their results, then yeah - that's irresponsible. (There's also real, systemic issues in science related to non-publishing of results and a bias toward positive results, but in order to discuss those problems realistically you first have to accept science as the primary model for learning and understanding the universe)

 

They could refuse to create the technologies that they know will add to the problem.

You very quickly fall into the trap of conflating engineers and scientists. While there is significant overlap, science is merely the study of the universe to make predictions while engineering is the application of those predictions to design and build things. Cool things, normally, but things nonetheless. (Then you have me - a software engineer who applies "not really science" to make "not really things" which is kinda fun).

 

The super-league of concerned scientists could do something more than write a stern warning to humanity.

You speak as though you think scientists have a voice at the table when it comes to politics. The total budget of NASA, the NSF, and the EPA in 2013 was $34.2B while the total budget for the DoD was $672.9B - if scientists had any real power do you really think the ratio would look like that?

 

 

You want me to think science is something special?

That it is something that should be elevated above all the rest of us?

Then let it do something special.

Like...end polio and smallpox? Give us the equations we need to walk on the moon? Or build a computer that runs millions of calculations per second and fits in your hand? Or let us predict, within a few degrees, the temperatures going out a few days? And within 10 degrees, out a full week or two? Or maybe do something like figure out the structure of the atom, or the chemical makeup of stars that have long-since burned away? Those kinds of things aren't special enough for you?