Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 112 posts

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#91

Post by nsxwolf »

whyaduck wrote: post #87
nsxwolf wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the very point I'm making, that you can't derive values that way, and yet many people insist we do so anyway. Like climate change - we've proven man is responsible for global warming therefore we must do x, y, and z about it. The fact that mankind is responsible from global warming has nothing to do with needing to do something about it, or what exactly should be done. But it's always spoken about in terms of…

You've skipped over a key part of the argument for taking action to reduce climate change: we've proven man is responsible for global warming, our models show devastating things a, b and c happening due to warming, therefore we must do x, y and z about it.

Or, its possible to arrive at the conclusion that doing something about climate change would plunge billions back into poverty, starvation and death, and decide against doing those things.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#92

Post by nkassis »

jff wrote: post #40
tbskm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of Americans who would disqualify a candidate that doesn't believe in evolution, global warming, or some other widely known scientific fact. Unfortunately, there are just as many ill-informed Americans that share these views. It's sad and depressing, and is usually just the result of being in a conservative bubble. If you live in rural America, your friends and family all regurgitate the same things…

> If you live in rural America, your friends and family all regurgitate the same things they hear from Fox News, Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, Breitbart, and other conservative sources It's funny that conservatives 'regurgitate', while liberals are simply repeating things they've thought about deeply after hearing John Oliver say them.

Both sides have people who don't think critically. It's a huge problem. I consider myself a liberal but I dislike sites like Huff Post. It looks to me just like Breitbart. I don't know why it's popular. John Oliver is funny and can give some insight into many topics but no one should use it as sole source of information, I don't think many do but I'm not on the receiving end of their argument so it's hard to tell.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#93

Post by alecst »

nonbel wrote: post #85
alecst wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on this part? * Science isn't clear regarding what part of global temperature rise is due to human activity. I just want to contrast the above with this statement by the IPCC [1]: "Human influence has been detected and attributed in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, and in global mean sea level rise; and has been extremely l…

>"[human activity] has been extremely likely been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid century." This is worded strangely so that it doesn't mean anything. Of course human activity has been the dominant cause of humans observing something. Why don't they say CO2 emitted by human-made machines or something more specific?

That reply doesn't address my original comment, but the IPCC do say just that -- although not in that paragraph. You will find statements all over the IPCC about how climate change is nearly certain to be caused by people, and in particular, by people burning fossil fuels. If you go to the link I posted and search for "fossil" you will that in those notes. You can also read the official IPCC reports yourself to get a clearer idea.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but there's no anthropic principle at work. It would be perfectly fine to say (although it would not be true) that "plasma fluctuations on the surface of the sun are extremely likely to be the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid century."

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#94

Post by nonbel »

alecst wrote: post #93
nonbel wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"[human activity] has been extremely likely been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid century." This is worded strangely so that it doesn't mean anything. Of course human activity has been the dominant cause of humans observing something. Why don't they say CO2 emitted by human-made machines or something more specific?

That reply doesn't address my original comment, but the IPCC do say just that -- although not in that paragraph. You will find statements all over the IPCC about how climate change is nearly certain to be caused by people, and in particular, by people burning fossil fuels. If you go to the link I posted and search for "fossil" you will that in those notes. You can also read the official IPCC reports yourself to get a…

I was just commenting on the strange word choice used for that statement. Almost like whoever was editing that section wanted a way to weasel out of the implications later, if need be.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#95

Post by Retric »

phd514 wrote: post #84
Retric wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Faith is believing in something despite evidence to the contrary not because of it. So, there really is a conflict. People are not robots they can accept ideas in conflict to both be true. That does not mean faith has no cost. EX: So as not to offend anyone. If you believe that god's true name is 'Zual' and that she wants you to do a handstand on your 20th birthday. And you agree there is no evidence that this is the…

That's not at all what faith is. There are some definitions of faith that include "belief not based on proof", but that is still far removed from "belief despite evidence to the contrary".

Suppose someone said I am going to roll a fair six sided dice. So, 1,2,3,4,5,6.

I will give you a 50/50 bet. You can write down a number 1,2,3,4,5, or 6 and then chose if it will be that number or will be another number. AKA pick 2 and say it will be 2 or will not be 2.

Baring any evidence the first choice is random, but the second is that number or is not that number should not be random.

Logically faith is the same thing. It's picking a very specific result and saying baring any evidence I will pick a small set of outcomes and say this more likely true instead of not true.

Now, having evidence changes things. If you can show the dice is biased for 4, then picking not 6 is a better choice than not 4.

PS: Now if you believe picking is that number is a better option in my game, then I would be happy to play this game with you.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#96

Post by kazinator »

stcredzero wrote: post #67
kazinator wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consciousness (and pain) aren't illusions because they correspond to external phenomena, and have a significant objective component. An illusion is something that nobody else can experience, even partially, other than the subject having the illusion. Even if free will is rule-based at some low-level, that doesn't erase the concept of rights. We have rights even among inanimate objects. For instance, some server insta…

We have rights even among inanimate objects. For instance, some server instance has rights to access certain files. You're really positing this as actual serious intellectual output? Just because it uses the same word does not mean that "rights" in the context of a server instance has anything to do with rights in the context of human rights.

I don't see the difference. Rights is just some security-related descriptor of an object, whether that be a human being or a Wi-Fi router or whatever. I generally don't equivocate over word semantics.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#97

Post by gwright »

alecst wrote: post #82
gwright wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this a lot and feel like it is a muddled response to a muddled understanding of climate change. For what it is worth: * Science is clear that CO2 causes warming (pure physics), but so do many other gases (methane, water vapor, etc). * Science is clear that global temperatures are rising (even if you quibble about the 'pause') * Science isn't clear regarding what part of global temperature rise is due to human…

Can you elaborate on this part? * Science isn't clear regarding what part of global temperature rise is due to human activity. I just want to contrast the above with this statement by the IPCC [1]: "Human influence has been detected and attributed in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, and in global mean sea level rise; and has been extremely l…

I was pointing out that the human induced part of the rise isn't quantified very well (large error bars, lots of handwaving), not that there is no human induced warning.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#98

Post by gwright »

alecst wrote: post #93
nonbel wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"[human activity] has been extremely likely been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid century." This is worded strangely so that it doesn't mean anything. Of course human activity has been the dominant cause of humans observing something. Why don't they say CO2 emitted by human-made machines or something more specific?

That reply doesn't address my original comment, but the IPCC do say just that -- although not in that paragraph. You will find statements all over the IPCC about how climate change is nearly certain to be caused by people, and in particular, by people burning fossil fuels. If you go to the link I posted and search for "fossil" you will that in those notes. You can also read the official IPCC reports yourself to get a…

"climate change" isn't caused by people unless you think the climate never changed before humans were involved.

The question is what portion of the change is contributed by recent human industrial activity and I don't think that is particularly well quantified.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#99

Post by eveningcoffee »

kazinator wrote: post #96
stcredzero wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have rights even among inanimate objects. For instance, some server instance has rights to access certain files. You're really positing this as actual serious intellectual output? Just because it uses the same word does not mean that "rights" in the context of a server instance has anything to do with rights in the context of human rights.

I don't see the difference. Rights is just some security-related descriptor of an object, whether that be a human being or a Wi-Fi router or whatever. I generally don't equivocate over word semantics.

Perhaps you could provide few examples that relate to humans?

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#100

Post by randomgyatwork »

alecst wrote: post #82
gwright wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this a lot and feel like it is a muddled response to a muddled understanding of climate change. For what it is worth: * Science is clear that CO2 causes warming (pure physics), but so do many other gases (methane, water vapor, etc). * Science is clear that global temperatures are rising (even if you quibble about the 'pause') * Science isn't clear regarding what part of global temperature rise is due to human…

Can you elaborate on this part? * Science isn't clear regarding what part of global temperature rise is due to human activity. I just want to contrast the above with this statement by the IPCC [1]: "Human influence has been detected and attributed in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, and in global mean sea level rise; and has been extremely l…

This page has a graph that shows how global temperature changes are part of cycle that has existed longer than humanity.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page...

Post reply on HN