Alfalfa
Well-Known Member
Other theories are irrelevant huh?
lol
In that context, yes. Surely you're smart enough to understand.
Other theories are irrelevant huh?
lol
I've literally never read an actual science journal in my life. Where would I even get one? Do they have a section of science journals at the library? I guess they might but I haven't noticed them.
Well you are not smart enough to understand that my original post was just pointing out to GF that there have been, and are, multiple theories of the advent of the universe, since he said he was aware really of one, which was the big bounce theory he described. And that was it. It is obvious you have no idea what you have been arguing about and so it makes you look very foolish.In that context, yes. Surely you're smart enough to understand.
I find people who say "We can't know for sure, so you can't assume anything" to be so dangerous.
"There is some nuance about how top scientists describe the Big Bang"
"WE CAN'T BELIEVE A THING, DON'T BLINDLY FOLLOW SCIENCE, WE KNOW NOTHING!"
Terrible attitude, don't shun learning because the process is incomplete.
Well you are not smart enough to understand that my original post was just pointing out to GF that there have been, and are, multiple theories of the advent of the universe, since he said he was aware really of one, which was the big bounce theory he described. And that was it. It is obvious you have no idea what you have been arguing about and so it makes you look very foolish.
Back in 2006 when Al Gore said we were ten years away from this same moment did he have scientific backing or was he just making stuff up? If it was based on scientific opinion (as I believe it was) why has the "point of no return" been moved twice as far into the future as it originally was? What happened that averted the crisis in 2016?
I mean, do those of you pretending to know anything about these subjects, and boldly declaring that the people who do know about them are wrong, understand how foolish you sound?
Cosmic background radiation map.
Don’t confuse al gore with a scientist. Dude is a politician. He cherry picks info on global warming. So while his support of the general idea of global warming is correct. He has many details and the conclusions he draws are bogus.Back in 2006 when Al Gore said we were ten years away from this same moment did he have scientific backing or was he just making stuff up? If it was based on scientific opinion (as I believe it was) why has the "point of no return" been moved twice as far into the future as it originally was? What happened that averted the crisis in 2016?
Stop inventing things and pretending that I said them.The process you described was of quiet introspection, where people are just kindly checking each others work. That isn't what we have. .
Back in 2006 when Al Gore said we were ten years away from this same moment did he have scientific backing or was he just making stuff up? If it was based on scientific opinion (as I believe it was) why has the "point of no return" been moved twice as far into the future as it originally was? What happened that averted the crisis in 2016?
The process you described was of quiet introspection, where people are just kindly checking each others work. That isn't what we have. Every newspaper has an article "Scientist clams groundbreaking new (fill in the blank.)" That process precedes most peer review. These battles are fought in the public before the peer review process and I would submit that taints the process. Once the scientist has been on Oprah, who the Hell cares what the review says. The dude is going to sell a million copies of his book. On the other hand, someone could have a perfectly plausible theory that is politically incorrect. How does peer review work for that? Are reviewers able to set aside their politics and personal beliefs and analyze the data on its merits? No. That isn't the way it works. On the other hand, you put forward a theory that enforces their beliefs it gets pushed to the top and skeptics are disfellowshipped. THAT is the process we have today for a lot of the sciences. Gender Studies, Nutrition, Climate Science, Economics, Social Science, and Parenting have all been tainted to some degree.
There is always an Inquisition, that never changes.
What's amazing is your insistence on your unchanging interpretation of anything and everything regardless of any other info presented. Keep tilting at those windmills don.I know what you wrote. It was a bad response. You answered all of his questions with "well, there are many theories, here are some ones I heard of". What a terrible ****ing response. I responded with actual information about the speed of light and current state of understanding of the fate of the universe.
People amaze me.
Many people do not want to learn. Still other people may be "victims" of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which basically is simply thinking one knows more then one actually knows:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
Especially in this age of severe erosion of any trust or confidence in any source of "authority", be it political authority, scientific authority, religious authority, it's not all that uncommon for people to simply assume their own authority. I exaggerate this trend at times by suggesting we will eventually get to the point where, a patient needs open heart surgery, lets go out on the street and ask the first person, "yo, you wanna try your hand at heart surgery? Follow me". No patient would ever accept any such thing, but nowadays many will settle for the opinion of anyone except people actually trained for decades in just the subject they are interested in. Perish the thought, lol. Add to that a transition to a so-called Post Truth landscape, and they'll be no point in learning anything at all. Whatever you want to believe will be true to you, and if people with greater knowledge disagree, well they can always pound salt, lol.
Many people do not want to learn. Still other people may be "victims" of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which basically is simply thinking one knows more then one actually knows:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
Especially in this age of severe erosion of any trust or confidence in any source of "authority", be it political authority, scientific authority, religious authority, it's not all that uncommon for people to simply assume their own authority. I exaggerate this trend at times by suggesting we will eventually get to the point where, a patient needs open heart surgery, lets go out on the street and ask the first person, "yo, you wanna try your hand at heart surgery? Follow me". No patient would ever accept any such thing, but nowadays many will settle for the opinion of anyone except people actually trained for decades in just the subject they are interested in. Perish the thought, lol. Add to that a transition to a so-called Post Truth landscape, and they'll be no point in learning anything at all. Whatever you want to believe will be true to you, and if people with greater knowledge disagree, well they can always pound salt, lol.
Wait, so who's supposed to dictate policy?Reference to Dunning Kruger is something that is being co-opted by everyone these days to put down their opponents. That said, our Doofus-in-Chief is a walking, talking embodiment of the Dunning Kruger Effect.
People will always have opinions, even on things well outside their areas of expertise, specialized knowledge, or even cursory knowledge, but in something with such weighting implications as climate change, the stakes are too high to allow motivated reasoning by non-experts, political ideologues, willfully ignorant, and financially compromised to dictate/dominate the policy debate.