Life In 19x19

hyperpape wrote:You are not so far off as you think about public opinion, Magicwand: http://www.gallup.com/poll/161645/ameri ... -rise.aspx

The go boards probably are atypical for a variety of reasons.

I could also say that Americans are atypical for a variety of reasons, and the result would probably be somewhat different in e.g. Europe.

tj86430 wrote:I could also say that Americans are atypical for a variety of reasons, and the result would probably be somewhat different in e.g. Europe.

They prefer the term "exceptional".

Those interested in this topic might also be interested in this course from Coursera which will start soon:

Climate Literacy: Navigating Climate Change Conversations

https://www.coursera.org/course/climateliteracy

tj86430 wrote:

hyperpape wrote:You are not so far off as you think about public opinion, Magicwand: http://www.gallup.com/poll/161645/ameri ... -rise.aspx

The go boards probably are atypical for a variety of reasons.

I could also say that Americans are atypical for a variety of reasons, and the result would probably be somewhat different in e.g. Europe.

Good point.

Dusk Eagle wrote:"The theories are of course occasionally true, but their truth is completely uncorrelated with the believer's certainty. For some reason, sometimes when people think they've uncovered a lie, they raise confirmation bias to an art form."

Yeah, I'm not sure if that really helps. What's the upshot for how we conduct our lives? Obviously, we still need good evidence to believe a theory, and many conspiracy theories simply and utterly fail that test. But say you think you see some evidence for a particular theory. What does that comic tell you?

imabuddha wrote:

tj86430 wrote:I could also say that Americans are atypical for a variety of reasons, and the result would probably be somewhat different in e.g. Europe.

They prefer the term "exceptional".

I like special.

Bill Spight wrote:

imabuddha wrote:

tj86430 wrote:I could also say that Americans are atypical for a variety of reasons, and the result would probably be somewhat different in e.g. Europe.

They prefer the term "exceptional".

I like special.

I think the word you're looking for is "betterer"

hyperpape wrote:

Dusk Eagle wrote:"The theories are of course occasionally true, but their truth is completely uncorrelated with the believer's certainty. For some reason, sometimes when people think they've uncovered a lie, they raise confirmation bias to an art form."

Yeah, I'm not sure if that really helps. What's the upshot for how we conduct our lives? Obviously, we still need good evidence to believe a theory, and many conspiracy theories simply and utterly fail that test. But say you think you see some evidence for a particular theory. What does that comic tell you?

To be conscious of confirmation bias and to consider all of the evidence presented, not just the evidence that you believe suits your case. This goes for both sides of a debate.

Dusk Eagle wrote:

hyperpape wrote:

Dusk Eagle wrote:"The theories are of course occasionally true, but their truth is completely uncorrelated with the believer's certainty. For some reason, sometimes when people think they've uncovered a lie, they raise confirmation bias to an art form."

Yeah, I'm not sure if that really helps. What's the upshot for how we conduct our lives? Obviously, we still need good evidence to believe a theory, and many conspiracy theories simply and utterly fail that test. But say you think you see some evidence for a particular theory. What does that comic tell you?

To be conscious of confirmation bias and to consider all of the evidence presented, not just the evidence that you believe suits your case. This goes for both sides of a debate.

In particular, one thing I've noticed in both in heated internet threads and in real-life debates is that when specific points or arguments are refuted, it's not uncommon that that the person who presented them simply switches to a slightly different argument, remaining exactly as confident in their initial belief and fighting exactly as vigorously as before. Sometimes this happens multiple times, with absolutely no effect on the certainty of anyone involved that "their side" is still right. I've definitely caught myself doing this, and I've found that even once I'm aware of it, it can be sometimes be hard to force myself to stop right away.

If a major piece of evidence you've presented or a major claim you've made has been refuted, and you continue to feel just as confident that you are still correct, it's worth taking some time to consider why. If that piece of evidence or that line of reasoning didn't play an important role in why you believed what you did, then why did you bring it up? If it did play an important role, then why does its refutation have no effect on your certainty? Perhaps it was only one of several independent reasons you had, so your belief still logically stands. But really, if you've just had something you strongly believed shown to be inaccurate, shouldn't that make you at least a little less confident in the other things you've claimed?

And even if nothing you've said has been refuted, it's still worth every so often taking time to reweigh the reasons for your current beliefs, or to decide what evidence would actually suffice to convince you of the opposite. Especially if you also find yourself feeling a strong emotional attachment to your position in a debate, since if your goal is to form accurate beliefs (as opposed to trying to win the debate), it's irrational to remain specially attached what you believe right now merely because it's what you happened to think initially.

Dusk Eagle wrote:To be conscious of confirmation bias and to consider all of the evidence presented, not just the evidence that you believe suits your case. This goes for both sides of a debate.

Good advice, applicable to everything, not just conspiracy theories.

What I'm getting at is that I wonder to what extent there is any useful advice that helps you avoid conspiracy theories that is more specific than good advice for thinking in general (or that doesn't entail being exessively dogmatic in other ways). I suspect there is, but I also suspect that it's going to end up being rather subtle.

ok...i think about 10% of people think it is a hoax and few doesnt care or dont have any opinion...
now i will ask question and see if you (90%) can answer.
if climate change is man made...then how did it started up trend since 1700 when man made cause was abscent?
how did medival warm period created if man made factor was missing?
why do you not accept the fact that earth climate will go up and down 1 degree C on its own.
Scientists cameup with multiple model that has been proven wrong and you still believe them.
answer IMO is that earth temperature depends on 10000 variable and man made factor is not even .01%.
although 90% believe it is true but it doesnt necessary make it a true statement.
i read all arguments that was presented and have not changed my mind.
CO2 is not a pollution. we have better things to worry about than co2 level.
temperature change past 100 years is less than 1degree which is normal.
we are coming out of little ice age therefore it is logical to assume that temperature will go up naturally.
also..we should ask how we measure earth average temperature.
i am sure it has error tolerance of some degree.

IMO spending trillions of $ in CO2 level is like buying 1,000,000 $ car insurance for flat tire.

Magicwand wrote:ok...i think about 10% of people think it is a hoax and few doesnt care or dont have any opinion...
now i will ask question and see if you (90%) can answer.
if climate change is man made...then how did it started up trend since 1700 when man made cause was abscent?
how did medival warm period created if man made factor was missing?
why do you not accept the fact that earth climate will go up and down 1 degree C on its own.

Nobody is claiming that man is the only contributing factor to climate. Not any climate scientist. Not any person in this thread.

Why do you attack a silly position that nobody holds? Please stick to the actual arguments.

Scientists cameup with multiple model that has been proven wrong and you still believe them.
answer IMO is that earth temperature depends on 10000 variable and man made factor is not even .01%.

So you are saying that you do believe that there is a man-made contribution to climate change, you just disagree on the magnitude?

although 90% believe it is true but it doesnt necessary make it a true statement.

Absolutely, there are lots of silly beliefs held by majorities.

i read all arguments that was presented and have not changed my mind.
CO2 is not a pollution. we have better things to worry about than co2 level.
temperature change past 100 years is less than 1degree which is normal.

How have you determined what is a "normal" temperature change?

we are coming out of little ice age therefore it is logical to assume that temperature will go up naturally.
also..we should ask how we measure earth average temperature.
i am sure it has error tolerance of some degree.

Of course there are error tolerances on measurements. What is the point you are trying to make here?

Magicwand wrote:Scientists cameup with multiple model that has been proven wrong and you still believe them.

What makes you think that those models have been proven wrong? Thanks.

HermanHiddema wrote:Why do you attack a silly position that nobody holds? Please stick to the actual arguments.

there are ppl here claiming that global warming is due to mostly man made factor.
i am saying that man made factors were missing before industrial revolution.

HermanHiddema wrote:So you are saying that you do believe that there is a man-made contribution to climate change, you just disagree on the magnitude?

there may be man-made factors but even if there is...i dont think it is to a degree we should worry about.

HermanHiddema wrote:How have you determined what is a "normal" temperature change?

i checked past 2000 years climate changes. i understand that before invention of thermometer it is not accurate as now but mini iceage and medival warm period is undenyable.

HermanHiddema wrote:Of course there are error tolerances on measurements. What is the point you are trying to make here?

my point is that error tolerance and we are worried about .5 degree over 200 years. that is crazy how everyone not see that?

Bill Spight wrote:

Magicwand wrote:Scientists cameup with multiple model that has been proven wrong and you still believe them.

What makes you think that those models have been proven wrong? Thanks.

I was trying to find good source but there are too many garbage site i have to look through...
your question should be "what model"?
i am sure there are 1000 different model.
one that i am talking about is model that most politicans use"catastrophic weather model."(temperature will rise 5degree or higher next 100 years. NYC will be under water. number of huricane will triple and stronger. etc etc.)
these are the facts:
temperature didnt change 1degree past 2000 years and it will stay that way.
i dont see NYC sinking under 5 feet of water anytime soon and if you believe that you are a fool.
number of hurican have not changed.

If i am wrong...it will be pretty bad.
but if you are wrong... that will be even worse.