<p>um if you see this movie its not going to change the world.
The movie fast food nation only made me hunger for McDonalds, im not going to change anything even if the earth is falling apart.</p>
<p>and i believe in Creation so the fact that the earth has been deteriating for 650k years already makes the movie fake to me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
science is not a "side" it's based on facts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hold on a second...</p>
<p>Science may be based on facts, but its conclusions are certainly not facts. Science merely extrapolates from a given set of information. That there happens to be a "direct linear relationship" among several variables proves nothing by necessity. Sure, as this linear relationship continues, the probability that these variables are somehow connected increases; however, never will one be certain (or even Bayesian-certain) that there is a necessary connection between those variables.</p>
<p>Edit: A popular name for the type of criticism I presented is called the "post-hoc fallacy." Search it up on google.</p>
<p>This is an enormous problem with science, and a flaw that many scientists tend to forget when they work: the line between a legitimate and an illegitimate generalization. Since the scientist's data is always derived from observations, and thus experience, their conclusions will always be contingent. Since such conclusions are always contingent, they are never necessary. The problem, then, is that it is debatable when scientists can generalize from contingent observations to necessity.</p>
<p>Of course, you could pull a Kripke on me and argue that necessity can be derived a posteriori, but I doubt you are that good.</p>
<p>Edit: I realize that there were a lot of implicit premises in the above reasoning, but I am hoping that you are intelligent enough to derive them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Since my mother is a scientist, I'll take a guess and say most of the funding for the studies probably came from where her funds come from--grants from the government and funds from the university.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My father is an environmental scientist with a doctorate from Columbia University...</p>
<p>
[quote]
i have already researched the topic extensively myself. my position will not be changed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hitler wore pants</p>
<p>Global warming will be over in the next five years. I am not sure whats the next diaster that enviro/legal/media complex chooses to come up with..Lets see..global cooling? check. nuclear winter? check. overpopulation? check. peak oil!! Aha! I predict that all the buzz will be about peak oil. Chris I'm with you man. It seems all the others are brainwashed beyond belief. Hey Xe, did Gore claim he invented global warming in the movie?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Science may be based on facts, but its conclusions are certainly not facts. Science merely extrapolates from a given set of information. That there happens to be a "direct linear relationship" among several variables proves nothing by necessity. Sure, as this linear relationship continues, the probability that these variables are somehow connected increases; however, never will one be certain (or even Bayesian-certain) that there is a necessary connection between those variables.
[/quote]
And in the case of global warming, there's not even a decent correlation. Refer to 40s-70s, when temperatures were dropping (and people were going nuts over global cooling, of course), and CO2 was increasing the most rapidly.</p>
<p>The 'science' that Inconvinient Truth tries to pass is a travesty to actual science. Al Gore can only fool the believers. This movie is a sermon to the cult of environmentalim. Nothing else.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And in the case of global warming, there's not even a decent correlation. Refer to 40s-70s, when temperatures were dropping (and people were going nuts over global cooling, of course), and CO2 was increasing the most rapidly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you. I am merely stating that Shaganov's reasoning about scientific methodology is flawed.</p>
<p>oh sweet god. nspeds, excluding you (your argument is theoretical and I am certainly outclassed by you in debate theory), i can't believe how backwards some of these people are... expert scientists you all claim to be, one thing you are all most certainly not is historians. if you look at every major domestic and international crisis that experts predicted throughout time and have read exerpts from disbelievers before the crisis struck, you echo their sentiments exactly. Influenza? Pshaw, that could never kill ME slash thirty million other people....
Also, I'm willing to bet that although Chris has seen it, a LOT of people who are saying they don't believe in it, have not seen this movie. And Chris, what does your father thing about global warming? That it's bunk? Seriously?<br>
Eesh. I'm biking to work now...</p>
<p>and goodbrew, you seem like a bit of a conservative to me, and YOU'RE saying it's a shame "actual science" is ravaged by this movie? Ummm.... wow.</p>
<p>^ You have no argument, no facts, no nothing..Thats why you have to try to smear me as a 'conservative', which I am not. Tell me, how many conservatives spit on religion, or think that 'traditional family values' is ********?</p>
<p>Even though Al Gore killed ManBearPig, I dont like him.</p>
<p>The correlation between the number of pirates in the world and global warming is also staggering. save the freaking pirates.</p>
<p>sensationalism.</p>
<p>"Since the scientist's data is always derived from observations, and thus experience, their conclusions will always be contingent. Since such conclusions are always contingent, they are never necessary. The problem, then, is that it is debatable when scientists can generalize from contingent observations to necessity."</p>
<p>Thats a bit of a simplification of science. Sure, most discoveries in the natural sciences are based on observation. But by testing, substituting variables to try and contradict their observations, we create a great way of moving closer to necessity. While a scientific theory could never be said to hold true in every world and every time (for example newtons theories on gravity and motion are bunk at the atomic level) science often has a knack for making their conclusions inductively very strong (hence statistically very probable).</p>
<p>Most scientifically discovered "natural laws" (I'm using that because I cant think of a better word) will never meet up to the standard of necessity as eassily as the man made worlds of numbers, logic, law, and grammar. And we shouldn't expect them to.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But by testing, substituting variables to try and contradict their observations, we create a great way of moving closer to necessity. While a scientific theory could never be said to hold true in every world and every time (for example newtons theories on gravity and motion are bunk at the atomic level) science often has a knack for making their conclusions inductively very strong (hence statistically very probable).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That does not refute my argument and it does not add anything to it except that one can approach necessity asymptotically, but that can be inferred. </p>
<p>
[quote]
as eassily as the man made worlds of numbers, logic, law, and grammar.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Whether numbers or logical laws are "man-made" is debatable. Ever heard of mathematical platonism? It is a very viable movement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And we shouldn't expect them to.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said that we should. I argued that it is unclear, and trivialized through ignorance, when one can justifiably generalize to necessity (thus the reference to Bayesian probabilities).</p>
<p>analogy--</p>
<p>nspeds: theory/philosophy
al gore: global warming</p>
<p>correlation? probably correct, but the majority of people don't want to/can't understand it. and before you rip me apart nspeds, it was meant to be a compliment</p>
<p>"That does not refute my argument and it does not add anything to it except that one can approach necessity asymptotically, but that can be inferred."</p>
<p>Wasn't really meant to refute anything, it was more the tone I took issue with. It nearly sounded like you were saying scientific discoveries regarding the natural world should be taken with a grain of salt.</p>
<p>Edit: However I do completely agree with your point about generalizations made by people who do not grasp the concept. This is not to say the reasonable lay person need to know EVERYTHING on th topic to make sound decisions or rational arguments for a course of action.</p>
<p>"Whether numbers or logical laws are "man-made" is debatable. Ever heard of mathematical platonism? It is a very viable movement."</p>
<p>Vaguely. Something about there being dimensionless properties that exist in every world as non-objects. I may be wrong.</p>
<p>
[quote]
correlation? probably correct, but the majority of people don't want to/can't understand it. and before you rip me apart nspeds, it was meant to be a compliment
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well... there is a growing divide between intellectuals and common Americans. Bush wins because he sounds like he could bake you a nice cake. Kerry loses because he sounds remotely intelligent. Unfortunately, that aspect of Kerry happens to demean many Americans such that they take it as patronizing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It nearly sounded like you were saying scientific discoveries regarding the natural world should be taken with a grain of salt.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, not at all. That is the point of assessing an argument logically and without emotion. That "nearly sounded" was not implied by my reasoning.</p>
<p>I am indicating, however, that one should approach "scientific facts" cautiously. Hume's criticism of causality raised many problems for scientific theory, and it has yet to be satisfactorily answered.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And Chris, what does your father thing about global warming? That it's bunk? Seriously?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you that dense? I told you already. </p>
<p>He's an environmental scientist with a doctorate from Columbia University (I'm sure you've heard of Columbia University). He works for the government doing studies similar to the ones presented in An Inconvenient Truth.</p>
<p>You're discrediting him, and yet you praise the other scientists (who have the same, if not lesser, credentials) in your earlier posts.</p>
<p>One more thing - you don't have to be a "conservative" to not be swayed by sensationalist garbage. Leave it to a liberal to turn this into a partisan argument.</p>
<p>(I should note that I have no ties to either party and I am neither a liberal nor a conservative.)</p>
<p>"One more thing - you don't have to be a "conservative" to not be swayed by sensationalist garbage. Leave it to a liberal to turn this into a partisan argument.</p>
<p>(I should note that I have no ties to either party and I am neither a liberal nor a conservative.)"</p>
<p>That sword cuts both ways, pal. You don't have to be a liberal to turn something into a partisan argument. You should know that if you truly have no party affiliation.</p>