[Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . .
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Tue Jan 1 13:36:33 PST 2013
On 01/01/2013 11:11 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
> When you go to the doctor and he or she tells you that you have an
> affliction or need to take some medicine, do you accept what they say
> on the basis of their expertise? Or do you question it, look into the
> matter yourself? Do you do your own experiments to do you simply read
> up on experiments done by others? Does it make you dogmatic just
> because you take the medical advice of experts and if not, what is
> different about medicine than any other area of science?
I sure as hell do question things in this case. If it's not immediately
life-threatening, I do my own research, looking into side-effects of
medication, possible treatments and their possible complications. It's
my life, and my body. It's also not unheard of for doctors to prescribe
medicine that isn't always required, so it bears looking into. I don't
do my own experiments, but I read up on as much as I can. I do this for
vitamins I take, why wouldn't I do it for a medical affliction? I'd
probably also go to another doctor for a second opinion, which is just
another form of research.
>
> Look, you are not being fair and are using cheap shots and insults.
> There are MANY areas of your life where you depend on the expertise of
> others, especially in cases of massive consensus. Medicine is just one
> obvious example. Doing so does not make you dogmatic. NO ONE has the
> time to look into EVERY issue with the detail of an expert. Testimony
> is an indispensable source of human knowledge. Without, we would each
> know very little.
I don't look into many of the mundane technologies in my life, because I
haven't had a reason to. With things like BPAs in plastic, radon in
homes, asbestos, and others, it would behoove me to be more sceptical
here as well. Experts can be wrong, too, you know. But your basic point
is valid. Unless something requires extra scrutiny, or I'm simply
interested in it, I leave it alone.
I was initially interested in climate science because of the modeling
involved. Being a computer science graduate with many years of
experience in programming, I wondered how they were going to go about
handling it. Another motivator was the dire predictions coming from the
scientists, given the chaotic nature of what they were studying, and the
proposed solutions that looked more like proposed scams to me. Looking
into it more led me to question a lot of things in the science, and off
I was on a merry chase.
>
> Then we come down to the issue of what I or anyone else should do when
> given the choice of (a) believing what the majority of experts say on
> ANY topic or (b) believing what you say, given that you have no formal
> training, education, or expertise. The wise decision is (a). Even you
> will agree in most cases that this general way of thinking is correct.
I will believe the experts as a default state, in most cases that don't
impact my life much, but I hold the right to look into anything I wish
for any reason I wish, despite what the experts might or might not like
about that. The gods gifted me with brains able to discern bullshit, so
why not use them?
Paul
>
> Joe
>
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> On 01/01/2013 03:13 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>> I'm dogmatic because I think that a non-scientist has no place
>> making comments that are rejected by the VAST majority of
>> scientists? Holy crap!
>
> You are choosing to believe the authorities based not on reasoning
> but on belief in their abilities. That sounds dogmatic to me.
>
>
>>
>> Sorry but global warming is a serious issue and it appears that
>> you do not know what you are talking about wrt it. So yes, in a
>> public forum, I will point that out every day of the week. I
>> don't care about your ego; I care about the future of our planet.
>
> You can assume I don't know what I'm talking about, or you can
> look into my arguments and set aside, for the moment, the idea
> that consensus means anything at all in science. When I do this, I
> see a science in its infancy that has a long way to go before we
> can rely upon the many predictions of death and disaster that have
> not (yet?) come true.
>
>
>>
>> You are a Christian. Do you believe what the bible says, at least
>> in some cases? On what basis? Testimony.
>
> I am not a Christian. The Bible to me is an interesting
> historical document.
>
>
>>
>> That is all I'm appealing to wrt issues about global warming.
>> Non-scientists should generally defer to scientists when it comes
>> to matters of science. Some issues of science are unsettled and
>> are matters of debate. Global warming is not one of them. There
>> is a solid consensus on this issue.
>
> I'm of the opinion that people should look into things for
> themselves. That way, they might be able to find out if the wool
> is being pulled over their eyes or if the Emperor is wearing clothes.
>
>
>>
>> I work at a university. I talk to scientists all the time. I have
>> never met a single scientist who is also a skeptic about climate
>> change. Not one. Believe me I meet and ask scientists all the time.
>>
>> Change the topic to football. Suppose you posted on the V that
>> Mark Sanchez was a better quarterback than Tom Brady. That alone
>> would tell me that you don't know jack about football and I'd
>> have no problem telling you that.
>>
>> The other thing that is so irritating about you is that your
>> arguments are ALWAYS structurally similar to general skeptical
>> arguments. Were they sound you could use them to undermine ALL
>> knowledge claims. There is nothing special about climate change,
>> given the structure of your arguments.
>
> The models have not been very good at predicting global surface
> temperature. That is one argument. I can see how that can be
> applied to any field of knowledge where the models have not been
> good at predicting something, but I don't see how it undermines
> ALL knowledge claims.
>
>
>>
>> I've told you this before. I'd tell you that I'm an expert when
>> it comes to the topic of skepticism but since you don't even
>> listen to scientists about matters of science, what's the use?
>>
>> Also slippery slope arguments are classic FALLACIES, that is,
>> they are bad, invalid arguments. It is the favored fallacy of the
>> NRA.
>
> I just read up on this, and you are right. That doesn't stop the
> problem that a ban on a weapon sets a precedence that can be used
> later to ban other weapons, but I can't claim that it will
> definitely do so time after time. I just fear that the momentum
> from such a ban in an anti-gun climate could leave us effectively
> unarmed, which is a problem that the Second Amendment was designed
> to counter.
>
> Paul
>
>
>>
>> On Dec 31, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Some comments below.
>>>
>>> On 12/31/2012 01:53 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>> Scott,
>>>>
>>>> Can you give some specific examples? Or is it just enough to
>>>> say "This is happening"?
>>>>
>>>> Wilson says "But they would rather not talk at all, and so they
>>>> resort quite quickly to the instruments of harassment and
>>>> coercion" to which Scott responds "This is happening."
>>>>
>>>> Please support your claim. If "they" -- meaning progressives,
>>>> liberals, or Intoleristas -- "resort quickly to the instruments
>>>> of harassment and coercion" you must have plenty of cases to
>>>> back up your claim, enough to support the claim that "they" are
>>>> doing, as opposed to a select few. Please give those examples
>>>> and make sure you have enough of them to support this very
>>>> general, over-the-top claim.
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe Paul could provide evidence backing up this claim: "I
>>>> would like to point out that it's the liberals on this list (or
>>>> 'Intoleristas', if you prefer) that come across as the most
>>>> dogmatic of the two main groups on this list
>>>> (Intoleristas/liberals vs. conservatives/Christ Church
>>>> members)." Come across as dogmatic to whom? And how many
>>>> liberals come across as dogmatic? Why not name 10 since there
>>>> are enough, on your view to make such a general claim.
>>>
>>> Are there even 10 regular posters on this list any more? But,
>>> in answer to your questions, they come across as dogmatic to me,
>>> personally. Tom seems to take the cake here, since he
>>> constantly posts cartoons from various outlets that (presumably)
>>> match his take on things, and often posts snide one-liners that
>>> refer back to some of his standard concerns (i.e. something that
>>> Doug did, something that Dale did, etc). If I never see that
>>> picture of Doug Wilson smoking a cigarette again with some pithy
>>> slogan attached to it, I'll have moved on to bigger and better
>>> things. So, that's one. You count as a second one, because of
>>> the whole argument we had about whether or not I should be
>>> posting sceptical comments about climate change without letting
>>> everyone know that I am not a credentialed climate scientist.
>>> Ted would count as a third, because he almost always simply
>>> posts articles from what he thinks of as unbiased science-only
>>> climate change publications. He will, occasionally, post
>>> something of his opinion on the matter, but those posts are
>>> rare. You could probably also throw Nick in there, though his
>>> posts are very professorial and he doesn't engage in mud-slinging.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul also writes: "It was the Intoleristas that spent a lot of
>>>> time and effort trying to convince me that boycotting
>>>> businesses run by Christ Church members wasn't somehow
>>>> intolerant of another religion." Please be sure to name the
>>>> Intoleristas that "spent a lot of time and effort trying to
>>>> convince" you to boycott Christ Church businesses? Be specific.
>>>> Name enough of them to justify this slander of a whole group of
>>>> people who happen to disagree with your views.
>>>>
>>>> And of course "No conservative has ever told [you, Paul] that
>>>> [you] shouldn't make posts of a certain type." Why should they?
>>>> You are there mouthpiece.
>>>
>>> Believe it or not, but I have almost nothing in common with your
>>> average Christ Church member, or your average staunch
>>> conservative. I am not a Christian, so you can point to that as
>>> the major difference between myself and Christ Church members
>>> that is a bar that pretty much completely separates us. I don't
>>> fight against gay marriage, I don't care what goes on in the
>>> bedroom, I don't care much about abortion, etc. I end up taking
>>> their side, though, when I think the Intoleristas are unfairly
>>> persecuting them for their beliefs or because they just don't
>>> like them.
>>>
>>> As for who it was that tried to convince me to boycott Christ
>>> Church businesses, I'd have to go through the archives and
>>> look. I don't particularly care enough to do that at the
>>> moment, so feel free. I remember a lot of discussion about how
>>> Christ Church was (for lack of a better term) "invading" Moscow
>>> and how any money spent at a Christ Church-owned business just
>>> gets tithed back to the church, so we shouldn't spend our money
>>> there or it would just end up in Doug's pockets. I remember
>>> also being inundated by a list of acts that Christ Church
>>> members have pulled in the past, which I guess was supposed to
>>> show just how evil they were and how we should boycott them
>>> because of that. My arguments about "what if they were Muslims,
>>> would we treat them the same way?" and "why harm individuals
>>> that you all seem to think are being brainwashed?" going exactly
>>> nowhere. But it's all out there in the archives, if anyone
>>> cares enough to look for it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The two posts are ironic because I've posted a slew of
>>>> questions about gun control over the last few weeks, asking
>>>> some straightforward questions and trying to engage in
>>>> thoughtful discussion. None of the questions received any
>>>> serious answers. There were some sarcastic posts by Paul but no
>>>> serious attempt to engage in discussion.
>>>>
>>>> I've refuted several arguments given by conservatives on this
>>>> these issues but guess what? Conservatives keep using those bad
>>>> arguments anyway, without attempting to respond to them. I
>>>> can't count the times that Paul or Gary or others, for
>>>> instance, have jumped from "let's talk about gun control" to
>>>> "let's ban all firearms."
>>>
>>> As Scott mentioned, that's your classic "slippery slope"
>>> argument. If it's OK to ban AR-15s because of this one
>>> incident, then when is it not OK to ban pellet guns because of
>>> some other one?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm ready to talk and I can talk without insulting anyone. Can
>>>> either of you? Is it even possible for Scott, Paul, or Gary to
>>>> have a conversation without insulting someone, or making the
>>>> kinds of unsupported general claims in these two posts? This is
>>>> not an insult, it is a challenge.
>>>
>>> I can, occasionally, refrain from resorting to insults, you
>>> wart-hogged faced baboon (<-- Princess Bride reference).
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Scott Dredge
>>>> <scooterd408 at hotmail.com <mailto:scooterd408 at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's got some substance Dr. Gier, you just need to cut
>>>> through a lot of Doug's crap to see some of it:
>>>>
>>>> <Everything goes great in this world of monochrome
>>>> diversity until someone actually disagrees with them in
>>>> their town>
>>>> This happened.
>>>>
>>>> <They cannot handle disagreement and debate, and so to the
>>>> extent that they have to talk at all they resort
>>>> immediately to shrill invective.>
>>>> This is still happening and you can see it in the threads
>>>> about 'gun control & the NRA' and 'global warming'.
>>>>
>>>> <But they would rather not talk at all, and so they resort
>>>> quite quickly to the instruments of harassment and coercion.>
>>>> This is happening.
>>>>
>>>> <This is what has happened in every place in the world
>>>> where they have had their way.>
>>>> This is true. Might makes right. We're lucky to live in a
>>>> country where individual rights are protected against mob rule.
>>>>
>>>> <These people we are up against are as intolerant as it
>>>> gets. While I grant they are not as dangerous as they used
>>>> to be, they are certainly as noisy as they used to be.>
>>>> Intolerance cuts both ways. Atheists can be just as
>>>> intolerant and Fundy religious types. Again, we're lucky
>>>> to live in a country where individual rights are protected
>>>> against mob rule.
>>>>
>>>> As for your comment that <[Doug's] is a very narrow world
>>>> indeed>, I agree with this as it's quite obvious. Even so,
>>>> Doug and his gullible flock deserve the exact same
>>>> Constitutional rights and protections as everyone else even
>>>> though they doesn't believe in the Constitution and do not
>>>> believe in an egalitarian society.
>>>>
>>>> <Happy New Year to all beings> I couldn't agree more. :)
>>>>
>>>> -Scott
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:45:59 -0800
>>>> From: ngier at uidaho.edu <mailto:ngier at uidaho.edu>
>>>> To: moscowcares at moscow.com <mailto:moscowcares at moscow.com>
>>>> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . .
>>>>
>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for posting this. I had not read it either before
>>>> now. It is vintage Wilson--all rhetoric and sarcasm with
>>>> little substance. Much like his papers for my philosophy
>>>> classes.
>>>>
>>>> Some time ago a Kirker accused me of being a "Hindu-Lover,"
>>>> or something like that. I had to inform him that I have
>>>> supported four Indians for their studies: one Christian who
>>>> is now practicing psychotherapy in Australia, one Hindu for
>>>> his art career, and a man and wife team (both devout
>>>> Christians). My Hindu friends may have good reason to
>>>> charge that I'm a "Christian-lover."
>>>>
>>>> The husband just finished his Ph.D. at the University of
>>>> Denver on the psychology of being a Christian untouchable.
>>>> (I thought that they did not exist.) It was a brilliant
>>>> analysis that gained him a dissertation prize of $2,000.
>>>> The wife just graduated summa cum laude from the School of
>>>> Nursing and the University of Houston.
>>>>
>>>> I had a great weekend celebrating with them (Indian food at
>>>> every meal) and a wonderful church service for
>>>> Telegu-speaking Christians. What a change when they
>>>> switched from the stodgy English hymns to the ones in
>>>> Telegu. The tamborines and tabla came out, and I was able
>>>> sing along because an IT guy projected the phonetic
>>>> equivalents on a screen. A weekend of total immersion in
>>>> Indian culture that will never be forgotten.
>>>>
>>>> Wilson praises that fact that many, but not as many as he
>>>> implies, Latin Americans have converted to Pentecostal
>>>> Christianity. (The highest percentage of them in coffee
>>>> producing countries is 20 percent in Gautemala.) As he does
>>>> with his right hand, he calls American Pentecostals less
>>>> than Christian on the left. (I can play the right and left
>>>> hand game as well as he can.) There is absolutely no
>>>> healing, speaking in tongues, prophesying, and holy rolling
>>>> at Christ Church.
>>>>
>>>> The only foreign travel Doug Wilson did was on U.S. subs.
>>>> He doesn't have a clue what multiculturalism is or what
>>>> seasoned travelers experience and learn in foreign lands.
>>>> His is a very narrow world indeed.
>>>>
>>>> Happy New Year to all beings,
>>>>
>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A society grows great when old men plant the seeds of trees
>>>> whose shade they know they shall never sit in.
>>>>
>>>> -Greek proverb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
>>>> <mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com> on behalf of Moscow
>>>> Cares
>>>> Sent: Sun 12/30/2012 5:40 PM
>>>> To: Joe Campbell
>>>> Cc: viz
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>>>>
>>>> "Moscow Cares"
>>>> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>>>>
>>>> Tom Hansen
>>>> Moscow, Idaho
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>> http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130101/be5eaa0e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list