Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Fab Yolis » Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:23 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Sarcasm is not trolling. Neither is identifying your driving motivation.

sucks to be you........... and, grow up.
Wake up!
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Lausten » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:17 pm

And how would know if the explanation of the struts was correct. Are you an expert on struts? You would only know it was correct if you checked with some other expers, or if you learned all about struts by reading books, and learning from others WHO WERE EXPERTS AND AUTHORITIES on struts. Unless of course you invented struts.

When you dismiss the idea of authority, you dismiss the idea of learning from others. You show no faith or trust in any human being. You ask everyone to be your personal teacher but show no real interest in learning.
Ven wrote: I'd ask him to provide a rational explanation for his assessment based on the available evidence (i.e. the visible condition of my struts, the logical causal consistency of strut issues with the problems my car was experiencing).
Mechanic wrote:(opens book to chapter 32 that discusses your exact situation, with pictures)
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Fab Yolis » Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:55 am

Lausten wrote:And how would know if the explanation of the struts was correct. Are you an expert on struts?
Because the mechanic could give me a clear logical mechanical (geddit?) explanation of how the struts were causing my problem. I might also get a second opinion from the internet and/or another mechanic.
You would only know it was correct if you checked with some other expers, or if you learned all about struts by reading books, and learning from others WHO WERE EXPERTS AND AUTHORITIES on struts.Unless of course you invented struts.


None of that would mean squat if it wasn't backed up by reason and evidence.
When you dismiss the idea of authority, you dismiss the idea of learning from others. You show no faith or trust in any human being. You ask everyone to be your personal teacher but show no real interest in learning.
I'm not dismissing the idea of authority, I'm dismissing the idea that an argument should be accepted simply because it was made by an authority!
Ven wrote: I'd ask him to provide a rational explanation for his assessment based on the available evidence (i.e. the visible condition of my struts, the logical causal consistency of strut issues with the problems my car was experiencing).
Mechanic wrote:(opens book to chapter 32 that discusses your exact situation, with pictures)
Me: "Thank you for going to the trouble of helping me to actually understand the problem, rather than just insisting that I take your word for it and hope that you're not going to rip me off".
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Lausten » Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:32 am

It is assumed that the person is considered an authority BECAUSE what he says is backed up by reason and evidence. Your system requires knowing everything to judge anything. Mine requires knowing how to evaluate certifications, degrees and peer review. It allows me to make judgments on more things and more complicated things. I can examine the methods of how a chart was made instead of examining each detailed point of data. I need a rudimentary understanding of the data, but I don't need a degree in the discipline to form an opinion.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Lausten » Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:55 pm

Ven wrote: I'd ask him to provide a rational explanation for his assessment based on the available evidence (i.e. the visible condition of my struts, the logical causal consistency of strut issues with the problems my car was experiencing).
Mechanic wrote:(opens book to chapter 32 that discusses your exact situation, with pictures)
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Me: "Thank you for going to the trouble of helping me to actually understand the problem, rather than just insisting that I take your word for it and hope that you're not going to rip me off".
Mechanic wrote:So, that's how you read a book. You open it and look at it. If you want to know things, you have to do a little work. Or, you could have just trusted the fact that I'm licensed to do this work, you could have read my Yelp reviews, or you could have looked on the back of the book and saw it was endorsed by National Mechanics Association. Basically, you could NOT be an ass and expect everything to be spoon fed to you.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Fab Yolis » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:30 am

Lausten wrote:
Ven wrote: I'd ask him to provide a rational explanation for his assessment based on the available evidence (i.e. the visible condition of my struts, the logical causal consistency of strut issues with the problems my car was experiencing).
Mechanic wrote:(opens book to chapter 32 that discusses your exact situation, with pictures)
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Me: "Thank you for going to the trouble of helping me to actually understand the problem, rather than just insisting that I take your word for it and hope that you're not going to rip me off".
Mechanic wrote:So, that's how you read a book. You open it and look at it. If you want to know things, you have to do a little work. Or, you could have just trusted the fact that I'm licensed to do this work, you could have read my Yelp reviews, or you could have looked on the back of the book and saw it was endorsed by National Mechanics Association. Basically, you could NOT be an ass and expect everything to be spoon fed to you.
Don't ever become a mechanic Lausten. You'd go out of business quick smart, no matter how good your credentials were.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Fab Yolis » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:35 am

Lausten wrote:It is assumed that the person is considered an authority BECAUSE what he says is backed up by reason and evidence.
Yes it is assumed that what they say is backed up by reason and evidence. Do you know what "assumed" means?
Your system requires knowing everything to judge anything.


No, it just requires that you make a minimum effort to THINK FOR YOURSELF!
Mine requires knowing how to evaluate certifications, degrees and peer review.
And how do you make those evaluations?
It allows me to make judgments on more things and more complicated things.
No, it puts you entirely at the mercy of others.
I can examine the methods of how a chart was made instead of examining each detailed point of data.
Good, then do that.
I need a rudimentary understanding of the data, but I don't need a degree in the discipline to form an opinion.
I never said you did.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Lausten » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:26 am

I figured you'd abuse my use of the word "assume". It's a word similar to "authority" there are valid assumptions, just like there are valid authorities. Both are backed up by reason, evidence and data. You are freaking pedantic as all get out.

You're telling me to think for myself? The guy who simply dismisses a chart that graphs the opinions of people 100 times smarter than him on the topic. You call that "thinking"? Did you even click the link? Did you read how they got they data?

I would give a long answer on how to evaluate certifications, but you are so dismissive of explanations, I know it would not be worth my effort. Surely you've heard the phrase, "oh, that's a good school", or "he went to Yale". Do those have any meaning to you?

Of course we are "at the mercy of others". I call it "trust". I'm not stupid, I don't trust everyone implicitly, but I have a pretty high degree of faith in my fellow humans. People have accomplished quite a lot without consulting me or explaining to me how they did it.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Jim Steele » Sat Oct 08, 2016 7:52 pm

Studies reveal that only 53% of climatologists and meteorologists, 36% of professional engineers and geoscientists, and 19% of agronomists believe that most changes in the climate system are human-caused.

http://co2coalition.org/2016/10/06/only ... believers/

According to analysis found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (Prokopy et al., 2015, Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012, Stenhouse et al., 2016), surveys of professional climatologists, engineers, geologists, and agronomists indicate that the percentage of these scientists who believe that most changes in the climate system are caused by humans falls abysmally short of the claimed 97%. In fact, these studies reveal thatAccording to analysis found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (Prokopy et al., 2015, Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012, Stenhouse et al., 2016), surveys of professional climatologists, engineers, geologists, and agronomists indicate that the percentage of these scientists who believe that most changes in the climate system are caused by humans falls abysmally short of the claimed 97%. In fact, these studies reveal that only 53% of climatologists and meteorologists, 36% of professional engineers and geoscientists, and 19% of agronomists believe that most changes in the climate system are human-caused.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo