Psience Quest

(2020-01-07, 01:45 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Then let me explain:

I was posting on a thread about global warming. I accept that the threat that global warming poses is significant and existential, and that it is urgent that we as a global civilisation do something about it. Anybody arguing that we need or ought not do anything is putting us all at risk. A strong response to such a person is justified. If their argument is that they understand science and that the science behind global warming is a hoax, then pointing out that in fact they are scientifically illiterate is justified.

Now, I know that you see things differently. You side with the person who argues that we need or ought not do anything. To you it does not matter that somebody who has no relevant expertise makes false claims about climate science. But please try to see things from my perspective to at least understand why I take the approach that I do. Can you try to do that, David?

You need to realise that it is unreasonable to use a moral argument against people - such as myself - who genuinely believe the view that 'climate change' is happening at a greater rate than it always does because of CO2 in the atmosphere. The whole The thread is meant to be about the evidence, and maybe the supposed mechanism of CC - not morals!

The Doctor who claims that statins are very ineffective at preventing heart disease, and have dangerous side effects, encounters the same false logic. Senior medics attack not his logic, but use heart rending (possible pun) pleas, "You are killing patients with your advice!" I hope you see the analogy.

David

(2020-01-09, 08:51 PM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]You need to realise that it is unreasonable to use a moral argument against people - such as myself - who genuinely believe the view that 'climate change' is happening at a greater rate than it always does because of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I wasn't using a moral argument in the post for which you banned me, it is simply what motivated me to make that post. But even if I had been: do you ban members on Skeptiko simply for making arguments with which you disagree?

What on earth is wrong with pointing out in a thread in which scientific matters are crucial that one of the most prolific contributors to that thread in recent months, who purports to understand that the science is wrong, and why it is wrong, has in fact proved himself to be scientifically illiterate in another thread? Isn't that an entirely relevant fact to point out in that situation?

Also, why are his rude and inappropriate comments directed towards me ignored (by you) and given a free pass, whereas my appropriate (though critical) comments about him get me banned? [ETA: To be clear, I don't care of itself that no moderator action was taken re his comments (because I can handle them myself) - I care about the double standard in moderation.]

[ETA2:]

(2020-01-07, 01:45 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]But please try to see things from my perspective to at least understand why I take the approach that I do. Can you try to do that, David?

Apparently not...

(2020-01-09, 11:19 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]I wasn't using a moral argument in the post for which you banned me, it is simply what motivated me to make that post. But even if I had been: do you ban members on Skeptiko simply for making arguments with which you disagree?

Obviously I don't, but the problem is that throwing moral judgements around in something like the CAGW debate quickly turns into a process of blaming other forum members simply for having a different opinion. I mean those on the other side see CAGW vastly differently from how you do. To give you one example [Content removed: we limit discussion about politically and scientifically controversial topics such as global warming to the opt-in, members-only forums. Feel free to repost your content there, David. --Laird]

I'd hazard a guess that nobody on Skeptiko has a stake in either side of CAGW (oil shares or green energy shares, say) so they are simply stating what they think about the idea that the world will be noticeably different 12 years from now because of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. They simply say what they believe is true, and point out the incredible inconsistencies in the story that climate activists would like to portray.

Quote:What on earth is wrong with pointing out in a thread in which scientific matters are crucial that one of the most prolific contributors to that thread in recent months, who purports to understand that the science is wrong, and why it is wrong, has in fact proved himself to be scientifically illiterate in another thread? Isn't that an entirely relevant fact to point out in that situation?

Because it is easy to pick on some isolated point that someone has got wrong - or simply worded badly - and condemn them in that way. LS has made huge scientific contributions on Skeptiko - indeed some years back (remember he was away for a while) he was the one that discussed with me at length until I realised that evolution by mutation and natural selection was simply wrong.

Quote:Also, why are his rude and inappropriate comments directed towards me ignored (by you) and given a free pass, whereas my appropriate (though critical) comments about him get me banned?

Unless a moderator performs a null job - simply lets anyone say what they like - the process requires a lot of judgement. Often I do additional things, such as PM people to get them to adjust their behaviour. I don't like banning people, except perhaps the spammers, and ideally I like everyone to actually discuss ideas, politely as one might at a dinner party. Skeptiko isn't a campaigning platform, it is about interesting alternative ideas. LS makes an amazing contribution by bringing new ideas to the forum.

Letting people simply squabble kills off the interest. You must know yourself, if you open a forum, and you just see A blasting B, who blasts back at A for page after page - well you just move on. That drowns out more thoughtful posters, whose views get lost in the froth. I see it is my job to prevent that happening as far as possible on Skeptiko.

David

There are no squabbles. It's always one or two members who are "disruptive, playing games, manipulative" and one or a few members who are "patient, knowledgeable, reasonable" in return. Which member falls into which category is determined by prejudice, even on Psciencequest. The difference is that the moderators at Skeptiko act on their prejudices and call it "judgement", whereas the moderators here mostly do not (to give credit where due).

One of my favoritist threads on Skeptiko was one where we found two examples of identical behavior and then listed the labels given to that behavior - the positive label and the negative label - depending upon whether it had been a proponent or a skeptic engaging in the behavior. It was even funnier because the praise-worthy proponent behavior was almost always more egregious than the insult-worthy skeptic behavior. It was deleted, of course. No insight coming from the moderators then, either.

Linda

(2020-01-09, 11:19 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]I wasn't using a moral argument in the post for which you banned me, it is simply what motivated me to make that post. But even if I had been: do you ban members on Skeptiko simply for making arguments with which you disagree?

(2020-01-10, 12:08 PM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]Obviously I don't

Well, it looks very much to me that you have banned me simply for arguing a case with which you disagree.

(2020-01-10, 12:08 PM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]but the problem is that throwing moral judgements around in something like the CAGW debate quickly turns into a process of blaming other forum members simply for having a different opinion.

This is irrelevant, because I haven't done that. If you think I have, then show me where you think I have.

(2020-01-09, 11:19 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]What on earth is wrong with pointing out in a thread in which scientific matters are crucial that one of the most prolific contributors to that thread in recent months, who purports to understand that the science is wrong, and why it is wrong, has in fact proved himself to be scientifically illiterate in another thread? Isn't that an entirely relevant fact to point out in that situation?

(2020-01-10, 12:08 PM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]Because it is easy to pick on some isolated point that someone has got wrong - or simply worded badly - and condemn them in that way.

Ah. So, you really don't understand at all the full extent of LoneShaman's demonstrated scientific errors. There are multiple of them, so we are not (merely) talking about "some isolated point", nor are we (merely) talking about "bad wordings". They are an obvious pattern of bedrock and basic misunderstandings. Here is a list of those which I've noticed. LoneShaman is under the misapprehensions that:

1. Gravity acts so as to reduce the amplitude of a pendulum. (Later, he admitted that he was wrong about this, but, given his admission, it seems unlikely that he understands why).
   
2. A constant force, such as a constant draft of air from an air vent, applied to a pendulum will counteract the effects of air resistance and friction at the pendulum's fulcrum so as to maintain its amplitude indefinitely.
   
3. There is no tension in a solid rod which acts as the connection between the fulcrum point of a pendulum and the pendulum's bob, or, at least, any tension in such a solid rod does not vary in magnitude and direction (even though, as he acknowledges, there is tension when that solid rod is replaced by a cord).
   

Here, because I know you will need it, is the evidence of (for) each of those errors, in LoneShaman's own words in the "Doubts about the moon landings" thread on Skeptiko:

1. In post #217 he wrote (emphasis added): "The restoring force is gravity. Always constant, and toward the Earth or Moon. The other is tension. Along the pendulum line from the bob to the pivot point. It is not constant it is changing in direction and magnitude. I hope that makes sense. Because of these changes gravity is resolved to eventually bring the pendulum to rest."
   
2. In post #130 he posted a video "Moon Hoax Now: Swinging ETB" whose narrator suggested at 0:52 that the bag was swinging in apparently perpetual motion "as if some sort of vent was blowing on it", and again at 1:49 "as if it was being installed right over a vent". LoneShaman appeared to accept and promote this explanation, writing as he introduced the video "Yet another indication of an atmosphere", writing in post #131, "i anticipate similar spurious conjecture to explain away the perpetual motion of the ETB bag" and, finally, writing in post #148: "How about we hear the fancy excuses for the swinging ETB bag. Should be a lark."
   
3. In post #367 he wrote (emphasis added): "The difference is that the first is like a single piece, no tension, no force that varies in direction or amplitude. it could just be a rod it would do the same thing", where in post #365 he had defined that first situation as "a sphere connected by a fixed cylinder that is not flexible, like a metal rod and bob on the end of it". He doubled down in post #370, writing (emphasis added) "Tension is the pulling force transmitted through a cable of some sort. It varies in magnitude as it swings.
   
   It does not vary in a fixed rod."
   

You can't just pass those errors off as "isolated points" or "bad wordings". They are a pattern indicating a fundamental lack of understanding of basic mechanical physics.

Now, what are the chances that a guy who obviously hasn't meaningfully studied, and who misunderstands, an area of science (mechanical physics) which is widely taught in high schools has studied, and understands, an area of science (climate science) which is more advanced, and which is primarily taught in universities - especially when he is on record saying that the only formal study of physics that he has undertaken is the physics unit of an applied science degree which he failed to complete?

David, this is very relevant information to a thread on climate science. Why am I not allowed to point it out on Skeptiko without being banned?

(2020-01-10, 12:08 PM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]Skeptiko isn't a campaigning platform

If that's what you honestly believe, then you need to pull both Jim_Smith and LoneShaman into line, because their primary activity is campaigning.

Well, just to take one of those points. I am quite sure that if you installed a pendulum above a vent, it would not come to rest. Even if the flow was uniform (and who is to say if it was) I think a pendulum that could move to some degree in two dimensions would probably end up in a steady state oscillating in a way in which the full force of the draft only operated in a part of the cyclic motion.

I think the biggest problem with Lone Shaman's ideas is probably that it is so hard to be sure that everything is taken into account. For example, were there pumps running inside the LEM that would cause some slight vibration?

David

(2020-01-10, 06:28 PM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]I think the biggest problem with Lone Shaman's ideas is probably that it is so hard to be sure that everything is taken into account.

I think the biggest problem with Lone Shaman's ideas is that they are wrong.

(2020-01-10, 07:09 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]I think the biggest problem with Lone Shaman's ideas is that they are wrong.

That this statement is promoted in this forum unsettles me. It reeks of arrogance. Surely we proponents should be more open minded and forgiving?

(2020-01-10, 08:38 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]That this statement is promoted in this forum unsettles me. It reeks of arrogance. Surely we proponents should be more open minded and forgiving?

To clarify, I'm talking about his ideas about pendulums, which are just plain wrong. When someone is just plain wrong, there's no call for open-mindedness and forgiveness.

(2020-01-10, 08:50 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]To clarify, I'm talking about his ideas about pendulums, which are just plain wrong. When someone is just plain wrong, there's no call for open-mindedness and forgiveness.

Pretty much. Of course, the point is to educate and inform, it isn't a personal matter - except inasmuch as each person has his or her own style of communication - as well as an individual reaction to discovering one has been wrong.

Reminds me of my school days, I didn't like to be wrong, but when my errors were pointed out I went away and reconsidered, to try to incorporate newly-acquired knowledge into my world view, In that respect, being shown to be wrong was and is beneficial, and indeed necessary, from time to time.