<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>I don't want to say you shouldn't question authority. Nor is there any harm in looking into matters on your own. And likely I've been too hard on you since part of the purpose of this forum should be to talk about whatever you please, push the envelope, even bring up crazy ideas that might someday not seem so crazy.</div><div><br></div><div>Part of my concern is the continual decline of respect for the academy. Some people have the opinion that all views are equally valid, that there are two equally valid sides to every issue. That is not always the case though one can make it seem as of it is by raising the standards of evidence to some unreasonably high level.</div><div><br></div><div>Overall society would benefit and our policy decisions would be better were we to respect academics more, or at least much of the Academy, at least in the same way that we respect the expertise of doctors, car mechanics, and others. </div><div><br></div><div>I don't suppose anyone would take your would take your word on cosmology over that of say Stephen Hawking's. But how much more complex is the whole universe than the earth? So there is more than just skeptical considerations at work here. </div><div><br></div><div>Likewise some willingly take the antibiotics offered by doctors but reject the theory -- evolution theory -- which makes the underlying research possible. </div><div><br></div><div>My point is you can't (in the epistemically sense) take parts of science you like and reject the parts you don't. Science is more tightly wedded than that. Climate scientists at WSU are or work with physicists, biologists, geologists, sociologists, etc. It is not a mere set of opinions by politically motivated ideologues.</div><div><br></div><div>Likely I can make this point in a less contentious and more friendly manner, and I'll endeavor to do so from now on.</div><div><br></div><div>Joe<br><br>On Jan 1, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/01/2013 11:11 AM, Joe Campbell
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CA+fbP8yAhC_ubZ2fEaEKAQQzOj1CsWjZCndsmFJd1OeMNfJMbA@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">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?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CA+fbP8yAhC_ubZ2fEaEKAQQzOj1CsWjZCndsmFJd1OeMNfJMbA@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CA+fbP8yAhC_ubZ2fEaEKAQQzOj1CsWjZCndsmFJd1OeMNfJMbA@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<br>
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. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CA+fbP8yAhC_ubZ2fEaEKAQQzOj1CsWjZCndsmFJd1OeMNfJMbA@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<br>
Joe<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Paul
Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="im">
<div>On 01/01/2013 03:13 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>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!</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
You are choosing to believe the authorities based not on
reasoning but on belief in their abilities. That sounds
dogmatic to me.
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
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.
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You are a Christian. Do you believe what the bible
says, at least in some cases? On what basis?
Testimony. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
I am not a Christian. The Bible to me is an interesting
historical document.
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
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.
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
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.
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Also slippery slope arguments are classic
FALLACIES, that is, they are bad, invalid arguments.
It is the favored fallacy of the NRA.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
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.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Paul</font></span>
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
On Dec 31, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Paul Rumelhart <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>Some comments below.<br>
<br>
On 12/31/2012 01:53 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">Scott,<br>
<br>
Can you give some specific examples? Or is it
just enough to say "This is happening"? <br>
<br>
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." <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
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. <br>
<br>
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."<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I can, occasionally, refrain from resorting to
insults, you wart-hogged faced baboon (<--
Princess Bride reference).<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
Joe<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at
1:00 PM, Scott Dredge <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:scooterd408@hotmail.com" target="_blank">scooterd408@hotmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div dir="ltr"> It's got some substance
Dr. Gier, you just need to cut through a
lot of Doug's crap to see some of it:<br>
<br>
<Everything goes great in this world
of monochrome diversity until someone
actually disagrees with them in their
town><br>
This happened.<br>
<br>
<They cannot handle disagreement and
debate, and so to the extent that they
have to talk at all they resort
immediately to shrill invective.><br>
This is still happening and you can see
it in the threads about 'gun control
& the NRA' and 'global warming'.<br>
<br>
<But they would rather not talk at
all, and so they resort quite quickly to
the instruments of harassment and
coercion.><br>
This is happening.<br>
<br>
<This is what has happened in every
place in the world where they have had
their way.><br>
This is true. Might makes right. We're
lucky to live in a country where
individual rights are protected against
mob rule.<br>
<br>
<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.><br>
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.<br>
<br>
As for your comment that <font style="font-size:10pt"><[Doug's] is
a very narrow world indeed</font>>,
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.<br>
<br>
<<font style="font-size:10pt">Happy
New Year to all beings> I <font style="font-size:10pt">couldn't
agree more. :)</font></font><br>
<br>
-Scott<br>
<br>
<div>
<hr>Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:45:59
-0800<br>
From: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ngier@uidaho.edu" target="_blank">ngier@uidaho.edu</a><br>
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:moscowcares@moscow.com" target="_blank">moscowcares@moscow.com</a><br>
CC: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a>
<div> <br>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [link
added] We, Intoleristas . . .<br>
<br>
<font>Hi Tom,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Happy New Year to all beings,<br>
<br>
Nick<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
A society grows great when old men
plant the seeds of trees whose
shade they know they shall never
sit in.<br>
<br>
-Greek proverb<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</a>
on behalf of Moscow Cares<br>
Sent: Sun 12/30/2012 5:40 PM<br>
To: Joe Campbell<br>
Cc: viz<br>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [link
added] We, Intoleristas . . .<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Seeya round town, Moscow, because
. . .<br>
<br>
"Moscow Cares"<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.MoscowCares.com" target="_blank">http://www.MoscowCares.com</a><br>
<br>
Tom Hansen<br>
Moscow, Idaho<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font> <br>
<br>
</div>
<div>=======================================================
List services made available by
First Step Internet, serving the
communities of the Palouse since
1994. <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a>
mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step
Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse
since 1994.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></blockquote></body></html>