Zeal Without Knowledge

We are looking for discussions more then debates. Come with an open mind, maybe we all can grow.

Moderators: 4E Admin, 4E Mod

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:01 pm

Eryk wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:55 pm
Any statistician???



User avatar
Cat's Paw
Posts: 4482
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: SE Michigan
Has thanked: 3107 times
Been thanked: 2892 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by Cat's Paw » Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:04 pm

Eryk wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:55 pm
Your arguments very often contain too many absolutes.
Increased variation in any process, signals the approach of a mean shift. It isn't a debate.

Eryk
Posts: 3407
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:39 am
Has thanked: 502 times
Been thanked: 1426 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by Eryk » Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:38 pm

Cat's Paw wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:04 pm
Eryk wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:55 pm
Your arguments very often contain too many absolutes.
Increased variation in any process, signals the approach of a mean shift. It isn't a debate.
Im not doubting your claims. I just find that using increasingly assertive language does not boost someone’s argument. It tends to do the opposite. And you use assertive language quite often.

I haven’t seen that to be the norm in the science community. Probably because conclusions and hypothesis are ever evolving as work is constantly being put under peer review. So scientists use constrained and conservative language. Using assertive language is more of a marketing tool.

User avatar
Cat's Paw
Posts: 4482
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: SE Michigan
Has thanked: 3107 times
Been thanked: 2892 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by Cat's Paw » Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:14 pm

Eryk wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:38 pm
And you use assertive language quite often.
... oh, I agree. I freely admit that I am opinionated. The only thing that gives me any comfort is knowing that I'm always right. Well, - "I thought I made a mistake once; only later did I realize I that I was wrong."

People almost never come back at me with a counter argument. They tell me I'm wrong, or that I lie, or that I don't make any sense, but they have no counter argument. Or if they do, I welcome that, as one side of a spectrum, with my "extreme claim" at the other end of the spectrum. That way, there is something to talk about. I look for the contrast. ...

User avatar
Ike
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:00 pm
Location: Minnesota
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by Ike » Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:00 am

Delenda Est wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:46 pm
Your side's approach to this was twofold: 1) denying the science
What is my "side"? I didn't vote for Trump, and I've already stated multiple times that I don't have a problem with the larger academic work regarding AGW.

I do assert, as someone who an in depth understanding in energy technologies, that you cannot pull people out of poverty without access to inexpensive and reliable energy resources - which would be fossil fuels.

Tell me, how do you reduce global poverty while reducing carbon emissions?

User avatar
Delenda Est
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:50 pm
Location: L'America
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by Delenda Est » Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:32 am

Ike wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:00 am
Delenda Est wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:46 pm
Your side's approach to this was twofold: 1) denying the science
What is my "side"? I didn't vote for Trump, and I've already stated multiple times that I don't have a problem with the larger academic work regarding AGW.

I do assert, as someone who an in depth understanding in energy technologies, that you cannot pull people out of poverty without access to inexpensive and reliable energy resources - which would be fossil fuels.

Tell me, how do you reduce global poverty while reducing carbon emissions?
First of all, economic growth is not the be-all and end-all. It would have been preferable to have much slower global growth, than risk permanent damage to the biosphere, as we are doing. This is a simple, straightforward utilitarian calculation.

We understood in good time (by the 1970's) both the ecological hazards of heedless, unregulated economic development (which we witnessed by observing how we had polluted our own country), as well as the benefits (both monetary and ecological) of having a concerted conservation-regime, and of the efficiency gains that technology assisted conservation could get us (gains that were becoming really significant, when the Reagan Admin. reversed the progress that was made under the Carter Admin). If we had built steadily on the progress that had been made during the Carter Admin., our energy profile could have been utterly transformed, by now. Progress tends to build on itself: a prevailing ethos of conservation, coupled with our species' basic ingenuity, could have identified dirty energy as a threat to civilization much earlier, and made finding cleaner alternative sources a simple matter of cultural consensus, rather than a hugely contentious issue based on political identity ("Drill Baby Drill," indeed).

We could have modeled these priorities for countries that were still developing, shifting significantly the regulatory environment and economic conditions of their development. Growth in the developing world would have been slower and had long-term sustainability.

If this sounds simply too idealistic, well the simple fact that the countries that set the pace have that attitude, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that there was no alternative to how things actually unfolded. I have to say that by your own profession you would have bias in favor of making energy cheaper rather than cleaner, so you don't exactly have credibility in making pronouncements on what is possible and what is not, regards this history.

LivingRock
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by LivingRock » Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:52 pm

Subway Proselytizer Preaches Climate Emergency, Trains Others To Spread Their Message


“McLachlan delivers a crushing litany on food shortages, forest fires, more and bigger storms. He wants to scare his listeners, wake them up...McLachlan teaches members of Extinction Rebellion how to give their own subway talks. His workshop is part writing craft, part encouragement and part reflection from a man who has a genuine knack for preaching the apocalypse.”

Sounds like a good old fashioned revival ;)

User avatar
Ike
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:00 pm
Location: Minnesota
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by Ike » Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:13 pm

Delenda Est wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:32 am
First of all, economic growth is not the be-all and end-all. It would have been preferable to have much slower global growth, than risk permanent damage to the biosphere, as we are doing.
You accuse me of not caring for people living in horrific poverty, and yet this very statement can only be made by people living in the lap of luxury in the first world with only scant regards for the suffering of billions of other people. The quality of life in the developing world is objectively *much* better today than a generation ago, and we should celebrate this.
Delenda Est wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:32 am
We understood in good time (by the 1970's) both the ecological hazards of heedless, unregulated economic development (which we witnessed by observing how we had polluted our own country), as well as the benefits (both monetary and ecological) of having a concerted conservation-regime , and of the efficiency gains that technology assisted conservation could get us (gains that were becoming really significant, when the Reagan Admin. reversed the progress that was made under the Carter Admin).
We had no concrete data that AGW was a thing in the 1970's when scientists were predicting an impending ice age. Economic growth in the developed world has exploded since the 1970's, and yet we can easily measure the quality of the air/soil/water and observe that we have made tremendous progress. This progress is overwhelmingly ignored for reasons I can only speculate on.

The extent to which we have increase the carbon population in the atmosphere is easily mitigated by the technological progress we have made. For example, with slightly warmer temperatures, we should expect more heat-related deaths. Except in the last 20 years, air conditioning has expanded vastly to the masses, allowing even most people to have access to cooler homes/businesses - which more than makes up for the slightly higher temperatures associated with increased carbon emissions.

User avatar
Ike
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:00 pm
Location: Minnesota
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by Ike » Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:16 pm

LivingRock wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:52 pm
Sounds like a good old fashioned revival ;)
This takes on *all* the characteristics of a religion. A morbid, secular religion without a redemption narrative.

User avatar
Delenda Est
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:50 pm
Location: L'America
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by Delenda Est » Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:48 pm

Ike wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:13 pm
You accuse me of not caring for people living in horrific poverty,

That's right.

Ike wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:13 pm
and yet this very statement can only be made by people living in the lap of luxury in the first world with only scant regards for the suffering of billions of other people

Rather it's made by someone who has the privilege to view things in the big picture. Relatively more suffering for people today is a more-even-tradeoff for curbing the suffering of untold greater numbers of people, indefinitely into the future. Unfortunately our species is not good at taking collective action on the basis of such considerations.
Ike wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:13 pm
The quality of life in the developing world is objectively *much* better today than a generation ago, and we should celebrate this.

Furthermore, this can be debated. The actual terms of human well-being, considered in a full-spectrum sense, cannot be wholly captured by per capita GDP. There are plenty of people in "impoverished" nations who suffer much less than the world's rich do... what matters in these cases are intact communities and family-relations, which the dislocating effects of Capitalism undermines (in various ways, both physical and mental). Granted these things are hard to measure, but it is certainly doubtful that development - especially rapid economic development - is very good for people, in the end. The biggest objective improvements have come in the form of improved agricultural productivity and the availability of modern medicines. The former depended much on these poor countries adopting a market-based system for their food production and consumption; this required more a political change than cheap sources of energy.


Ike wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:13 pm
We had no concrete data that AGW was a thing in the 1970's when scientists were predicting an impending ice age.
The concerns that we are at the end of an Interglacial period remain, and are quite valid.

Ike wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:13 pm
Economic growth in the developed world has exploded since the 1970's, and yet we can easily measure the quality of the air/soil/water and observe that we have made tremendous progress.
...In no small part because we have outsourced the most pollution-intensive forms of production to poor countries, whose people are incapable of protecting themselves against its downstream effects.

Ike wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:13 pm
This progress is overwhelmingly ignored for reasons I can only speculate on.
Probably because it is unacceptable to wreck the livability of one's environment just so that a few can get disproportionately rich. This is not a situation that we should celebrate not happening, anymore; it should never have happened, at all. Note again that the improvements come in significant part by outsourcing the problems.


Ike wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:13 pm
The extent to which we have increase the carbon population in the atmosphere is easily mitigated by the technological progress we have made. For example, with slightly warmer temperatures, we should expect more heat-related deaths. Except in the last 20 years, air
This argument is so unserious I take it that you're trying to troll me.

LivingRock
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by LivingRock » Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:31 pm

Delenda Est wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:48 pm
Ike wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:13 pm
and yet this very statement can only be made by people living in the lap of luxury in the first world with only scant regards for the suffering of billions of other people
Rather it's made by someone who has the privilege to view things in the big picture. Relatively more suffering for people today is a more-even-tradeoff for curbing the suffering of untold greater numbers of people, indefinitely into the future. Unfortunately our species is not good at taking collective action on the basis of such considerations.
There are many examples of significant environmental improvements by pollution reduction without some significant "suffering" trade-off. Why would we not seek that avenue as the rational cost-benefit way to handle issues at hand? In this scenario the supposed "trade-off" seems to have the cost-benefit wrong imho. Environmental concerns should be based on the fact that a human caused bad environment makes life for humanity worse. It's at least arguable, more likely imo, that self-imposed less prosperous "suffering" would actually lead to greater environmental damage making life worse for more people on the whole.

Simply suffering does not always beget future better outcomes. But, however contrived, relative deprivation (renunciation of excesses and the endurance of pain) and "suffering" has always been a feature for the pertinent. Salvation is both a social act and personal one, as the religious thinking goes, deprivation is supposed to bring better health and longevity while contributing to the common good. (Just for the sake of levity)...Some have really taken this to heart in the past and went straight to human sacrifice. Maybe we can stick to grass fed, free-range livestock ;)
Delenda Est wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:48 pm
Ike wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:13 pm
Economic growth in the developed world has exploded since the 1970's, and yet we can easily measure the quality of the air/soil/water and observe that we have made tremendous progress.
...In no small part because we have outsourced the most pollution-intensive forms of production to poor countries, whose people are incapable of protecting themselves against its downstream effects.
So you're bearish on the Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act, and the EPA?

User avatar
Delenda Est
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:50 pm
Location: L'America
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by Delenda Est » Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:02 pm

LivingRock wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:31 pm
It's at least arguable, more likely imo, that self-imposed less prosperous "suffering" would actually lead to greater environmental damage making life worse for more people on the whole.
It's a general theme in life, that restraint of one's desires in the short-term brings individual and collective benefit. Not always the case of course (see the Paradox of Saving), but there's a lot to be said for it. At any rate my complaints about this matter are all academic. Human nature is such that attitudes towards pollution and development were bound to devolve onto issues of political identity/were going to descend into ideology - especially on the Right. The Right was going to prevail because it could in addition to political identity leverage the narrow economic rationality of the profit-motive. This of course typically runs afoul of the Prisoner's Dilemma, but without a body for political coordination internationally, there was no real means of checking it (in contrast to the ability of a nation to politically coordinate to curb "perfect competition" - as with the Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act, and the EPA).

The result is that we're poisoning the Earth (setting off the latest Mass Extinction in the process), and the question is still open, if it won't ultimately be our species' undoing. But you've pocketed the gains, that bell can't be unrung, so congratulations are due.

LivingRock
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by LivingRock » Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:22 pm

Delenda Est wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:02 pm
LivingRock wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:31 pm
It's at least arguable, more likely imo, that self-imposed less prosperous "suffering" would actually lead to greater environmental damage making life worse for more people on the whole.
It's a general theme in life, that restraint of one's desires in the short-term brings individual and collective benefit. Not always the case of course (see the Paradox of Saving), but there's a lot to be said for it.
In this context imo, that theme is misapplied and/or overdone. It's the more economically prosperous developed world that's curbing emissions faster than the developing one. I theorize that had America/if America in the future, taken/takes the tact of economic sacrifice to save the earth, the outcome would be America environmentally would be more on par with India and China, not Norway.
Delenda Est wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:02 pm
At any rate my complaints about this matter are all academic. Human nature is such that attitudes towards pollution and development were bound to devolve onto issues of political identity/were going to descend into ideology - especially on the Right...
Frankly, such partisan characterization here is some combination of a strawman fallacy and not great analysis.

User avatar
Delenda Est
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:50 pm
Location: L'America
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by Delenda Est » Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:12 pm

LivingRock wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:22 pm
Delenda Est wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:02 pm
At any rate my complaints about this matter are all academic. Human nature is such that attitudes towards pollution and development were bound to devolve onto issues of political identity/were going to descend into ideology - especially on the Right...
Frankly, such partisan characterization here is some combination of a strawman fallacy and not great analysis.
Welp… I wrote you a big long reply, but the site ate it when I posted. So I'll just leave the exchange here at that.

LivingRock
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by LivingRock » Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:28 pm

Delenda Est wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:12 pm
Welp… I wrote you a big long reply, but the site ate it when I posted. So I'll just leave the exchange here at that.
Well damn. That happens to me as well. It’s seems after being on the reply screen for awhile, it makes you sign back in before finally posting. When you do sign back in, your typed reply is lost. Two things I’ve done: 1. Copy reply text before posting. 2. If you simply hit the back button on your browser it takes you back to the reply screen where your text isn’t lost.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:42 pm

@Delenda Est
LivingRock wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:28 pm
It’s seems after being on the reply screen for awhile, it makes you sign back in before finally posting.
There is a preset autolog out of 1 hour. If you use the remember me check box it will auto log you back in and you will never see the difference.

User avatar
Ike
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:00 pm
Location: Minnesota
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by Ike » Mon Sep 30, 2019 5:06 pm

Delenda Est wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:48 pm
Relatively more suffering for people today is a more-even-tradeoff for curbing the suffering of untold greater numbers of people, indefinitely into the future. Unfortunately our species is not good at taking collective action on the basis of such considerations.
The technological revolution we are currently undergoing right now will, for both good and ill, have a far greater impact on humanity over the next 20 years than climate change will have over the next 100 years. It doesn't take much of an imagination to see how technology will greatly improve our ability to mitigate/eliminate catastrophic weather events or even control larger weather patterns outright within the next few decades. All this is possible because of the fantastic economic progress humanity is making. To say that we need to leave people in horrific squalor to save the planet is simply short sighted.

I suspect this is part of why so many people are determined to ramp up the rhetoric with ever more epic rants about the dooming of our planet.

User avatar
Cat's Paw
Posts: 4482
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: SE Michigan
Has thanked: 3107 times
Been thanked: 2892 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by Cat's Paw » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:32 am


User avatar
Cat's Paw
Posts: 4482
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: SE Michigan
Has thanked: 3107 times
Been thanked: 2892 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by Cat's Paw » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:37 am

Delenda Est wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:32 am
Already it is a given that certain areas near the equatorial band of the Earth will become virtually uninhabitable by the end of the century, because of punishingly high temperatures.
Yes. Before the Earth is incinerated, we will go through deadly fires, floods, storms, drought, famine, disease, ... Just perhaps Earth will shake the infestation of humans.

User avatar
Cat's Paw
Posts: 4482
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: SE Michigan
Has thanked: 3107 times
Been thanked: 2892 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by Cat's Paw » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:42 am

Ike wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:00 am
you cannot pull people out of poverty without access to inexpensive and reliable energy resources - which would be fossil fuels.
Renewable energies are already becoming cost competitive. And Nuclear is not necessarily as scary as it seems.

... but we can help people in poverty, no matter what our energy source. We shouldn't have hunger on this planet. Not while we have also such an incredulous wealth gap ... that's GROWING EXPONENTIALLY !!!

Tax the wealth. Buy Public Good.

User avatar
Cat's Paw
Posts: 4482
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: SE Michigan
Has thanked: 3107 times
Been thanked: 2892 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by Cat's Paw » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:45 am

LivingRock wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:52 pm
members of Extinction Rebellion
Species are going extinct. Before the end of the century, it is predicted all large mammals will be gone. Bears, Deer, Giraffes, Elephants, etc.

User avatar
Cat's Paw
Posts: 4482
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: SE Michigan
Has thanked: 3107 times
Been thanked: 2892 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by Cat's Paw » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:54 am

Delenda Est wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:32 am
First of all, economic growth is not the be-all and end-all.
I really, really, really agree with that!!

Our economy grows at 3-4%
Ranks of the poor are increasing from the eroding middle class.
The wealth gap is growing; fewer and fewer people have more and more wealth.
That economic growth goes all, - entirely - to the rich!

economic growth does not help humans, or the planet; it is harmful.

User avatar
Cat's Paw
Posts: 4482
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: SE Michigan
Has thanked: 3107 times
Been thanked: 2892 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by Cat's Paw » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:55 am

Ike wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:00 am
how do you reduce global poverty while reducing carbon emissions?
Redistribute the wealth.
Tax the wealth; buy public good.

User avatar
Cat's Paw
Posts: 4482
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: SE Michigan
Has thanked: 3107 times
Been thanked: 2892 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by Cat's Paw » Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:00 am

Delenda Est wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:48 pm
Ike wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:13 am
and yet this very statement can only be made by people living in the lap of luxury in the first world with only scant regards for the suffering of billions of other people
I don't know how you can say that. The poor and hungry in 3rd world countries could easily say the same thing.

The planet is infested with humans.

User avatar
Cat's Paw
Posts: 4482
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: SE Michigan
Has thanked: 3107 times
Been thanked: 2892 times

Re: Zeal Without Knowledge

Post by Cat's Paw » Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:03 am

Species evolve when they are under stress.
Whatever survives this, our decaying environment, will not be human.

Post Reply