251–260 of 287 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot: gender, ethnicity/culture
Disagreements about gender and ethnicity/culture? I don't get it. Do people debate about those?
My wife took a Critical Thinking course at college. Changed her life, and as a result, my life and our kids'. Blows me away that only 90 people per year at that institution took that course. Meanwhile, back in the public school system, we have examiners mistaking their own opinions as fact. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13348672
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why do people trust the dissenting scientists? What leads them to that option over simply going with the majority? I've never understood that, but the cynic in me thinks they're simply looking for someone that they already agree with.
> So why do people trust the dissenting scientists? That's a great question. At least for myself, I don't immediately trust her (why would I without reading a substantial part of her work) - it is that when someone asks obviously informed questions, and answers are refused , I assume the person being asked the question is lying. In the youtube video, the senator is very clearing presenting himself as being far more i…
Do you trust what this guy says about blinking and lying?
Have you ever read and listened to the words she's actually written and said? Or did you only listen to Tucker Carlson's leading questions and slanted innuendo while interviewing her on FOX News? And how much do you think they're paying her to come on the show and stare into the camera and lie while blinking at 85 BPM?
She directly contradicts your claims (and her own) in her own words: "Nobody and certainly not myself is claiming that I am persecuted or there is a plot that is out to get me." -Judith Curry http://www.keithkloor.com/?p=3734 -- you're the one who's incorrectly claiming that she was somehow "silenced".
The late great Stephen Schneider said: "So they make this assertion that they’re being systematically excluded, because they have no other argument, they no have evidence for the assertion. Let them do a study. Let them show us the letters of all the papers that have been rejected. What we did is look at real evidence, independently collected: How many papers, and how many citations. That’s independent, and the only way you can claim it isn’t true is to invoke some massive conspiracy that is frankly laughable." -Stephen Schneider https://thinkprogress.org/interview-with-scientist-stephen-s...
So show us your evidence. Give us the names of scientists who have been silenced, or retract your false claim and conspiracy theory. But there is no doubt: Judith Curry is most certainly not one of those silenced scientists you hypothesize.
And remember what Stephen Schneider also said: "We've seen a lot of strawmen from Judy lately. It is frankly shocking to see such a good scientist take that kind of a turn to sloppy thinking. I have no explanation for it." -Steven Schneider http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.ht...
Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to. The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the…
Problem is, the truth is pretty hard to determine based on the usual suspects (studies, facts etc):
"I worry that most smart people have not learned that a list of dozens of studies, several meta-analyses, hundreds of experts, and expert surveys showing almost all academics support your thesis – can still be bullshit." -- http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-s...
Yikes. what we really need is to discuss the practicality of citing studies performed by third-parties, and of trying to "prove" truth individually rather than collect evidence over time, as a community.
> do it with compassion and generosity of spirit
This is just good-faith, and it needn't be "compassion and generosity" which can easily be abused.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"I never had sexual relations with that woman". And he was impeached for that, which is exactly the point.
Impeached just means they accused/questioned him about it. He remained President just fine, and was acquitted of the charges.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is gaslighting. Facts used to matter. It used to be that politicians would substantially lose face for inconsistencies in policy (think John Kerry most recently). Now politicians claim to have never done things they are on film doing, and people believe them. We are absolutely in a new mode of politics, one that transcends mere differences of opinion. To pretend otherwise does everyone a disservice.
> Now politicians claim to have never done things they are on film doing, and people believe them. "I never had sexual relations with that woman". "Read my lips: there will be no more taxes". "It depends on what the definition of is is". "I will close down Guantanamo Bay".
To be fair, it seems like he tried. He just failed?
He was playing it too safe to bring about the drastic measures needed to close gitmo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's never been. Perception have always been reality and politicians have always used that to get things their way. Thats why they study rhetorics not science. There is no objective transcendence between facts and politics decisions. You can believe that climate change is created by humans and still decide not to do anything about it because you also believe that technology will solve most of those problem, or that t…
This is gaslighting. Facts used to matter. It used to be that politicians would substantially lose face for inconsistencies in policy (think John Kerry most recently). Now politicians claim to have never done things they are on film doing, and people believe them. We are absolutely in a new mode of politics, one that transcends mere differences of opinion. To pretend otherwise does everyone a disservice.
Or don't care. Some people in the US are so far under water, they are desperate for change; such that they'd back Trump whatever.
Sexual allegations? Who cares if he can actually tries to bring back my job...
Note, I say this without any implication of whether the allegations are true. My point is, people might not care either way. A sexual predator that fixes things is better than an someone virtuous that does nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He won? That is very quantifiable. Despite on 69% of statements lying according to politifact. I would love for you to show me how people cared as much about truth now.
This is exactly where you are going wrong and I believe not really understand what politics is all about. People didn't vote on Trump because of those things that politfact measured. There weren't watching the debates to figure out who was the most well argued person based on some basic idea of their rhetorical skills. They voted on trump for all the things that Politifacts didn't measure but which matter to people a…
which is meaningless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Impeached just means they accused/questioned him about it. He remained President just fine, and was acquitted of the charges.
Didn't he lose a law license or something as well?
Besides the question was whether truth mattered more in politics. The decision to take his law license was from some state bar, not related to some political process.
It isn't about identifying bullshit so much as coming up with a subjective preference set to carry out and seek out that leads to a better world regardless of the circumstances.