Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
There must be a pact of non aggression among sects in your neighborhood that your sect of planet saviors has signed with the rest of them. has been Al Gore there lately? ;) 2014-04-05 7:02 GMT+02:00, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 7:11 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: My scepticism took a small knock today On Friday, April 4, 2014 6:00:09 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. Love that response - even if from a dream - no thanks, we don't indulge Perfect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. I must be on some national evangelical do not visit list, because when I see the little groups of salvation sellers come around they knock on all the houses except mine. I keep waiting, but instead I see them look down at their database generated no go list and move on. A strange mix of technology in the service of medievalism. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? Personally I think that you have to add in the fact that you took notice of the happenstance, so already it was a potential coincidence. By the time it recurs, it is slightly more than a coincidence. What does it mean? I think not much but it offers a glimpse into the larger nature of time as rooted in experience rather than physics. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 4 April 2014 19:35, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-04-04 1:29 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds They Believe Conspiracy Theories Ironically, it looks like they are conspiring to silence any mention of this fact! http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-intimidate-journal-into-retracting-paper-that-finds-they-believe-conspiracy-theories PS I know this isn't about everything but there seems to be some interest in this topic on this forum. It is strange, because when I did mention that here, the answer was that it was perfectly normal and rational to believe in global conspiracy theories and irrational not to. That sounds a slightly strange view, imho. Who said that, may I ask, and in what context? (I will be sending my ninja assassins round to deal with them later, as per the standing instructions of the Grand High Adepts of the Illuminati...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: My scepticism took a small knock today
-Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona There must be a pact of non aggression among sects in your neighborhood that your sect of planet saviors has signed with the rest of them. has been Al Gore there lately? ;) the bite of your irony attempts to leap, but fails to meet the bar 2014-04-05 7:02 GMT+02:00, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 7:11 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: My scepticism took a small knock today On Friday, April 4, 2014 6:00:09 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. Love that response - even if from a dream - no thanks, we don't indulge Perfect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. I must be on some national evangelical do not visit list, because when I see the little groups of salvation sellers come around they knock on all the houses except mine. I keep waiting, but instead I see them look down at their database generated no go list and move on. A strange mix of technology in the service of medievalism. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? Personally I think that you have to add in the fact that you took notice of the happenstance, so already it was a potential coincidence. By the time it recurs, it is slightly more than a coincidence. What does it mean? I think not much but it offers a glimpse into the larger nature of time as rooted in experience rather than physics. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
It is not irony. It is sarcasm. Although this message has been produced with 100% recycled electrons, I can´t indulge chatting in threads like this since it causes constant yawning on me and that increases my carbon footprint. Sorry 2014-04-05 10:27 GMT+02:00, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com: -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona There must be a pact of non aggression among sects in your neighborhood that your sect of planet saviors has signed with the rest of them. has been Al Gore there lately? ;) the bite of your irony attempts to leap, but fails to meet the bar 2014-04-05 7:02 GMT+02:00, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 7:11 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: My scepticism took a small knock today On Friday, April 4, 2014 6:00:09 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. Love that response - even if from a dream - no thanks, we don't indulge Perfect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. I must be on some national evangelical do not visit list, because when I see the little groups of salvation sellers come around they knock on all the houses except mine. I keep waiting, but instead I see them look down at their database generated no go list and move on. A strange mix of technology in the service of medievalism. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? Personally I think that you have to add in the fact that you took notice of the happenstance, so already it was a potential coincidence. By the time it recurs, it is slightly more than a coincidence. What does it mean? I think not much but it offers a glimpse into the larger nature of time as rooted in experience rather than physics. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
It was in one of the climate threads. Le 5 avr. 2014 09:11, LizR lizj...@gmail.com a écrit : On 4 April 2014 19:35, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-04-04 1:29 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds They Believe Conspiracy Theories Ironically, it looks like they are conspiring to silence any mention of this fact! http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-intimidate-journal-into-retracting-paper-that-finds-they-believe-conspiracy-theories PS I know this isn't about everything but there seems to be some interest in this topic on this forum. It is strange, because when I did mention that here, the answer was that it was perfectly normal and rational to believe in global conspiracy theories and irrational not to. That sounds a slightly strange view, imho. Who said that, may I ask, and in what context? (I will be sending my ninja assassins round to deal with them later, as per the standing instructions of the Grand High Adepts of the Illuminati...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
That doesn't narrow it down too much. On 5 April 2014 22:31, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: It was in one of the climate threads. Le 5 avr. 2014 09:11, LizR lizj...@gmail.com a écrit : On 4 April 2014 19:35, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-04-04 1:29 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds They Believe Conspiracy Theories Ironically, it looks like they are conspiring to silence any mention of this fact! http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-intimidate-journal-into-retracting-paper-that-finds-they-believe-conspiracy-theories PS I know this isn't about everything but there seems to be some interest in this topic on this forum. It is strange, because when I did mention that here, the answer was that it was perfectly normal and rational to believe in global conspiracy theories and irrational not to. That sounds a slightly strange view, imho. Who said that, may I ask, and in what context? (I will be sending my ninja assassins round to deal with them later, as per the standing instructions of the Grand High Adepts of the Illuminati...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback
On 4 April 2014 20:25, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 Apr 2014, at 16:42, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: FWIW, on a flight this weekend I read a bit of Amoeba's Secret on my kindle while the stranger in the seat next to me was reading Tegmark's book. If plane rides didn't make me fall unconscious almost immediately, that might have been grounds for an interesting live discussion. :) Lol. To sleep in a plane is like to sleep when you are high! 11 kilometres high! Some people do that. You miss the sun above the clouds! It is magic. I love plane. I can't sleep on planes, last time I travelled from the UK to NZ I couldn't sleep in the transit hotel either. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 11:47 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't narrow it down too much. Je m'accuse. I was one of them. My point was that conspiracy theories, in the sense of power elites secretly cooperating to further their own interests against the interests of the majority are not, unfortunately, unusual events in History. We know of countless examples of this happening in the past. I think it requires some magical thinking to assume that this type of behaviour is absent from our own times. I further pointed out that broadly discrediting any hypothesis that some elites might be conspiring against the common good, in broad strokes, seems to benefit precisely the ones in power. Furthermore, thanks to Snowden, we now have strong evidence of a large-scale conspiracy by western governments that I would not believe one year ago. In this case I'm referring to the secret implementation of global and total surveillance, with our tax money, by the people we elected, to spy on us, infringing on constitutions. I can't help but notice the very common rhetorical trick of using the nutty conspiracy theories (UFOs, the Illuminati, fake moon landing, etc.) to discredit the much more mundane and reasonable suspicions of elites abusing their power. The paper you cite in this thread uses that trick too. This broad denial of the existence of conspiracies is silly, if you think about it. The official explanation for 9/11 is a conspiracy theory: some religious arab fundamentalists conspired to create a global network of terrorist cells with the objective of attacking western civilisation. They hijacked planes and sent them into buildings and so on. If you don't believe in this explanation, you are then forced to believe in some other conspiracy. Of course conspiracies exist. The current denial of this quite obvious fact feels Orwellian, to be honest. Best, Telmo. On 5 April 2014 22:31, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: It was in one of the climate threads. Le 5 avr. 2014 09:11, LizR lizj...@gmail.com a écrit : On 4 April 2014 19:35, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-04-04 1:29 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds They Believe Conspiracy Theories Ironically, it looks like they are conspiring to silence any mention of this fact! http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-intimidate-journal-into-retracting-paper-that-finds-they-believe-conspiracy-theories PS I know this isn't about everything but there seems to be some interest in this topic on this forum. It is strange, because when I did mention that here, the answer was that it was perfectly normal and rational to believe in global conspiracy theories and irrational not to. That sounds a slightly strange view, imho. Who said that, may I ask, and in what context? (I will be sending my ninja assassins round to deal with them later, as per the standing instructions of the Grand High Adepts of the Illuminati...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:00 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? A boring explanation for this sort of thing is that the set of possible coincidences is so large that it is likely that we find one once in a while. Another one is that our brain is so good at detecting patterns that we realize subconsciously that something is likely to happen, by pinking on subtle clues from the environment. But of course, who knows? My favourite personal experience: once I was bored waiting on the subway station. I entertained myself by imagining a mysterious story that involved empty trains passing by the station without stopping, with the lights turned off. The next train passed by without stopping, with the lights turned off. Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 11:47 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't narrow it down too much. Je m'accuse. I was one of them. My point was that conspiracy theories, in the sense of power elites secretly cooperating to further their own interests against the interests of the majority are not, unfortunately, unusual events in History. We know of countless examples of this happening in the past. I think it requires some magical thinking to assume that this type of behaviour is absent from our own times. I further pointed out that broadly discrediting any hypothesis that some elites might be conspiring against the common good, in broad strokes, seems to benefit precisely the ones in power. Furthermore, thanks to Snowden, we now have strong evidence of a large-scale conspiracy by western governments that I would not believe one year ago. In this case I'm referring to the secret implementation of global and total surveillance, with our tax money, by the people we elected, to spy on us, infringing on constitutions. I can't help but notice the very common rhetorical trick of using the nutty conspiracy theories (UFOs, the Illuminati, fake moon landing, etc.) to discredit the much more mundane and reasonable suspicions of elites abusing their power. The paper you cite in this thread uses that trick too. This broad denial of the existence of conspiracies is silly, if you think about it. The official explanation for 9/11 is a conspiracy theory: some religious arab fundamentalists conspired to create a global network of terrorist cells with the objective of attacking western civilisation. They hijacked planes and sent them into buildings and so on. If you don't believe in this explanation, you are then forced to believe in some other conspiracy. Of course conspiracies exist. The current denial of this quite obvious fact feels Orwellian, to be honest. To state conspiracy in some domain or level seriously, you have to be precise and point accurately. Who, what, where, when, why? Just referring to elites or entire industries, of which I am often guilty, doesn't suffice. That's a sort of conspiracy comfort tale, which has the same effect as denying damaging backdoor deals on a large scale exist: inaction, no coordination, less people on the streets. The distinction is not trivial, as the comfort tale is abused as some explanatory weed, that illuminates all aspects of world politics, the hopeless vista of the speaker's position; everything they disagree with being part of the grand conspiracy and everything they agree with the opposite. The comfort tale use is not serious and more a psychology thing istm. PGC Best, Telmo. On 5 April 2014 22:31, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: It was in one of the climate threads. Le 5 avr. 2014 09:11, LizR lizj...@gmail.com a écrit : On 4 April 2014 19:35, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-04-04 1:29 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds They Believe Conspiracy Theories Ironically, it looks like they are conspiring to silence any mention of this fact! http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-intimidate-journal-into-retracting-paper-that-finds-they-believe-conspiracy-theories PS I know this isn't about everything but there seems to be some interest in this topic on this forum. It is strange, because when I did mention that here, the answer was that it was perfectly normal and rational to believe in global conspiracy theories and irrational not to. That sounds a slightly strange view, imho. Who said that, may I ask, and in what context? (I will be sending my ninja assassins round to deal with them later, as per the standing instructions of the Grand High Adepts of the Illuminati...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Saturday, April 5, 2014 1:35:26 AM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 5 April 2014 15:10, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: On Friday, April 4, 2014 6:00:09 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? Personally I think that you have to add in the fact that you took notice of the happenstance, so already it was a potential coincidence. By the time it recurs, it is slightly more than a coincidence. What does it mean? I think not much but it offers a glimpse into the larger nature of time as rooted in experience rather than physics. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I took notice of it because it was quite an unusual and memorable dream Right, that's why it was already a pattern. Being unusual and memorable is a kind of coincidence in itself. Your personal awareness is being alerted that there is something to notice that may be clarified later. - not so much the detail about the guy being a bible basher (although that was unusual) but some of the attendant details - odd features that made me tell Charles about it as soon as I woke up. Yes, it's not about the contents of the dream as much as the alignment of the dream with future reality. It's just showing you that your awareness extends beyond your personal definition of here and now, and reflecting back to you that you consider that kind of thing an intrusion. Not that I'm a dream expert, it could mean something else, I'm just going by my experience with synchronicity. The fact that you told Charles about it too can be considered even another coincidence, as far as it being something that you chose to do in response to the dream instead of doing nothing and forgetting about it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of times more money has been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR RD, and yet solar PV is still just a rounding error in our total energy budget. Haha - if you call the almost 150 GW of currently installed solar PV capacity a rounding error I do indeed call 1.5*10^11 watt-hours a rounding error! Human technology uses 1.5*10^17 watt-hours worldwide, so by your own figures photovoltaics provides .0001% of that, assuming that the weather is always cloudless and it never gets dark at night. And it wouldn't be even that big if governments didn't bribe people with tax breaks to do things that would otherwise make no economic sense. solar PV has also been doubling every two or so years for quite a while now and is projected to surpass 300GW of globally installed PV capacity by 2017. Big deal, then by 2017 PV would supply .0002% of our worldwide energy needs, assuming that the weather is always cloudless and it never gets dark at night. And it's easy to see why you picked 2017, Germany has been more aggressive in pushing photovoltaics with tax breaks and it got the highest electrical bills in Europe as a reward, but even the Germans are getting fed up with this nonsense and will pull the plug on solar subsidies in 2018, so expect a crash then. Compare this capacity with the current capacity of LFTR which is 0 watts. And by a curious coincidence zero is also the amount of money spent on LFTR RD over the last 40 years. I want to know if I really understand you correctly, are you saying that a major problem (or even a minor problem) with using Thorium for energy is that there isn't enough of it? Is that really your position? No it is not my position and never has been Good, then let's stop all this idiotic talk about recoverable Thorium reserves. The big issues with LFTR are that it simply does not exist True. and in order to bring it into existence would require a large scale concerted multi-decadal effort. A keen grasp of the obvious. A changeover of the way human civilization is powered from fossil fuel to ANYTHING elsewould require a large scale concerted multi-decade effort. the world is facing a recoverable uranium peak that will be reached within a decade or two (at current extraction rates, if nuclear is ramped up peak uranium will be reached that much sooner). Uranium prices are the lowest they've been in 8 years. So? So Economics 101 would say there is a contradiction between a recoverable uranium peak will be reached within a decade or two and Uranium prices are the lowest they've been in 8 years. I do not inhabit the same magical thinking universe you seem to live in. How nice for you, therefore by accepting my bet you can make an easy $1000. Nice polemic... what assurances do I even have that you would actually pay. The same assurance that I have that you would actually pay. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Video of VCR
On Friday, April 4, 2014 2:07:47 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Apr 2014, at 03:40, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, April 3, 2014 2:34:06 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Apr 2014, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 1:00:54 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Apr 2014, at 21:55, Craig Weinberg wrote: I believe you, but all of the laws and creativity can still only occur in the context of a sense making experience. Did I ever said the contrary? Yes, you are saying that multiplication and addition laws prefigure sense making and sense experience. It makes the minimal sense *you* need to understand what we talk about. That sense has already been studied and has itself some mathematical representation. Then, once you have the numbers, and the laws of + and *, you can prove the existence of the universal numbers and their computations. The universal numbers are the sense discovering machine. It doesn't matter how minimal the sense is by our standards. In that frame of reference, before we exist, it is much sense as there could ever be. If there is sense to make + and *, then numbers can only act as conduit to shape that sense, not to create it. You're interested in understanding numbers, but I'm only interested in understanding the sense that makes everything (including, but not limited to numbers). You ignore the discovery that numbers can understand and make sense of many things, with reasonable and understandable definitions (with some work). Just as we depend our eyes to make sense of our retinal cells sense, so to do numbers act as lenses and filters to capture sense for us. That does not mean that what sense is made through numbers belong to numbers. Of course. Comp might be false. ~comp, we agree on this since the start. But it does not add anything to your []~comp. You persist to confuse ~[]comp and []~comp. I'm not confusing them, I'm saying that []~comp is not untrue this means you say []~comp is true. Yes. Or that you confuse, like you did already truth and knowledge, but in that case you keep saying that you know []~comp, yet your argument above was only for ~[]comp, on which I already agree, as it is a consequence of comp. I'm not saying that I know it, I'm saying that it makes more sense. just because it is outside of logic. When you arbitrarily begin from the 3p perspective, you can only see the flatland version of 1p intuition. You would have to consider the possibility that numbers can come from this kind of intuition and not the other way around. If you put your fingers in your ears, and only listen to formalism, then you can only hear what formalism has to say about intuition, which is... not much. Why? Because of the incompleteness of all formal systems. All that can still make sense in the theory according to which sense is a gift by Santa Klaus. And this is not an argument against your theory, nor against the existence of Santa Klaus. Concerning your theory, I find it uninteresting because it abandons my entire field of inquiry: making sense of sense. I don't think abandoned as much as frees it from trying to do the impossible. I see mathematics as being even more useful when we know that it is safe from gaining autonomous intent. Comp implies that Arithmetic is not free of autonomous intent, trivially. But computer science provides many realities capable of justifying or defining autonomous intent. I was talking about the theory of comp being over-extended to try to explain qualia and awareness. It helps to formulate the problems, and provides way to test indirect predictions. But again you are pursuing the confusion between ~[]comp and []~comp. There's no confusion. If comp cannot justify actual qualia, but ~comp can, then we should give ~comp the benefit of the doubt. comp implies that ~comp has the benefits of the doubt. I told you this many times. As I just repeated above, this does not refute comp. What does it mean to give it the benefit of the doubt but then deny it? You are the only one who deny a theory here. By saying that ~comp is only what seems true from the machine's 1p perspective, you are denying ~comp can be more true than comp. I never said that comp is true, or that comp is false. I say only that comp leads to a Plato/aristotle reversal, to be short. We agree on this from the start, but what I am saying is that Plato also can be reversed on the lower level, so that the ideal/arithmetic is generated statistically by aesthetics. But *you* say that comp is false, and that is why we ask you an argument. The argument has to be understandable, and not of the type let us abandon logic and ..., which is like God told me ..., and has zero argumentative value. We don't have to abandon logic, but
Re: Video of VCR
On Friday, April 4, 2014 2:07:47 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Apr 2014, at 03:40, Craig Weinberg wrote: Logic is just required to be able to argue with others, and you do use it, it seems to me, except that you seem to decide opportunistically to not apply it to refute comp. Comp can't be refuted logically. Sorry, but the whole point is that it might be. It can be refuted logically, arithmetically, and empirically. It's a mirage. It seems like it could be refuted, but the built in bias of logic overlooks the stacked deck. Just as emotions and ego have their biases that warp our thinking, so too does logical thinking have an agenda which undersignifies its competition. You are so wrong here that I have to pause. You talk in a way which empties the dialog of any sense. You tell me in advance you need to be illogical to refute my agnosticism in the matter. You don't have to be 'illogical', you just have to transcend strict logic...break the fourth wall...use some of that courage you were talking about. All that I am saying is that incompleteness supports the limits of logic, so that we cannot presume to hold sense to that standard if my view is true. How could that conversation have sense? I put my hypotheses on the table, but here you put a gun on the table. Haha, yes, that's the thing, sense is tyrannical and violent. It acts like it is following laws but it cheats and then blames something else. At least I'm telling you it's a gun, you've convinced yourself that your gun is just a polite hypothesis. The choice is between logic, which is basically the most common part of common sense, and war or violence. It's precisely because logic is the most common part of common sense that it cannot parse the germ of sense, which is absolutely unprecedented. Identity is not just uncommon, but the opposite - unrepeatable, proprietary, anti-mechnical. There is no choice at all. There is the illusion of logic and the reality of having to carve some kind of genuine sanity out of this thing, moment by moment. If we wait for logic to give us permission, we lose the moment. Your theory is don't ask, but I realize also don't argue. Asking and arguing is great, but you can't get away from the fact that it doesn't make sense for the one who asks and argues to be a logical machine. It is comp which ultimately makes asking and arguing irrelevant, but it does so like a vampire - obligating us to invite us in..be fair to the imposter and let him take your brain. That might be correct, and provable in your non-comp theory, but that is not an argument against comp. (And this is no more an argument in favor of comp of course). It is an argument against comp in my non-comp theory. If it comes down to choosing between the certainty of life and awareness as you know it and taking a gamble on logic and computation, do you say yes to the farmer? If we aren't being faced with death with a mad doctor as our only hope, would we gamble with our lives? Would a machine say yes to the farmer? Randomness comes up in comp predictions? Yes. At step seven, as the UD will notably dovetail on all normal differentiation, on a continuum. The iterated WM self-duplication is a part of UD*. What becomes random, and why? Are you OK with step 3 of the UDA? I don't think so. Teleportation? No, the FPI. The fact that you cannot predict, in your personal diary, what you will write tomorrow, when you will be copied and sent at two different places simultaneously (or not). Nothing like that is going to happen. There aren't going to be any copies of me. Sociopaths and actors refute comp. Blindsight refutes comp. Keyboard passwords refute comp. Sports refute comp. etc. You do have a problem with logic. Maybe I do, because I don't see how that follows. When I list examples, you change the subject every time. I am just saying that you have not prove that comp is false. Telling me that I have not proved comp will not do the work, as comp implies that no such proof can ever exist. It's not a matter of proof, because proof has nothing to do with consciousness. It is a matter of what makes more sense overall. That is wishful thinking. It is your right. I have no problem with non-comp, but I do have problem with people using any theory pretending to refute something, and actually unable to do it. I'm refuting the metatheory that comp's refutability is related to its truth. I'm suggesting that specifically, comp is a theoretical construct which brilliantly reduces a theory of consciousness to simple elements, but that this is actually not related directly to consciousness, just as the shadow of a swimming pool is not full of water, even though it moves like water and reflects light like water. There is no problem working in different incompatible theories. But
RE: Climate models
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Climate models On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Solar PV has been here for 60 years and THOUSANDS of times more money has been spent developing it than has been spent on LFTR RD, and yet solar PV is still just a rounding error in our total energy budget. Haha - if you call the almost 150 GW of currently installed solar PV capacity a rounding error I do indeed call 1.5*10^11 watt-hours a rounding error! Human technology uses 1.5*10^17 watt-hours worldwide, so by your own figures photovoltaics provides .0001% of that, assuming that the weather is always cloudless and it never gets dark at night. And it wouldn't be even that big if governments didn't bribe people with tax breaks to do things that would otherwise make no economic sense. Haha John you really don't get energy metrics do you. By looking at your above calculation it is clear that you do not understand the what the term Capacity actually measures. Capacity DOES NOT measure total annual output, but rather the capacity of the unit to produce. Thus a 1GW Capacity nuclear power plant for example does not generate 1GW of electric power in the course of a year. A second ratio called Capacity Factor multiplied by the number of hours in a year is applied to the Capacity to get a rough yardstick of how much power the unit will actually generate over the course of a year. To use the nuclear power plant example. Typically nuclear power plants operate at 80% capacity so 1 GW * 8670 (hours in a year) * 80% = Annual expected output = 6936 GW hours / year Now to help you understand how off your numbers where let's do the same exercise for Solar PV capacity = 150GW The most widely used capacity factor for solar PV is 20%, which is to say that if you have a 1Kw solar panel on average (24X7X365) it will be producing 200 watts. Please understand that this is the smoothed out average rate of production and a 20% capacity factor takes into account the fact that the sun don't shine at night and it is cloudy sometimes. That is why it is just 20% and not the 80% capacity factor for a nuclear power plant. Shall we do the math now. 150GW * 8670 (hours/year) * 20% (capacity factor) = 260TW of annual electric output. This yields: 0.0017. A number that is 2,000 times larger than the number you erroneously produced. And this is the number after the 20% capacity factor has been applied - so no coming back with the sun don't shine at night rebuttal (becauce that has already been factored in) Now that I have helped you understand how Solar PV contribution to our total energy needs is actually 2000 times greater than what you believed it to be will you reconsider your position. I doubt it because in you it seems to be ideologically driven - and thus is not open to being changed by reason. solar PV has also been doubling every two or so years for quite a while now and is projected to surpass 300GW of globally installed PV capacity by 2017. Big deal, then by 2017 PV would supply .0002% of our worldwide energy needs, assuming that the weather is always cloudless and it never gets dark at night. And it's easy to see why you picked 2017, Germany has been more aggressive in pushing photovoltaics with tax breaks and it got the highest electrical bills in Europe as a reward, but even the Germans are getting fed up with this nonsense and will pull the plug on solar subsidies in 2018, so expect a crash then. Again terribly off the mark math. The actual figure is 0.4% of total global energy consumption. John keep doubling that every 2.5 years - of course multiply it by 2,000 times to correct for your bad math based on your self-manifested poor grasp of energy terms. Project ahead by fifteen years, which is five doublings and we get 12.8% -- of ALL energy needs by 2033 Then things really start mushrooming. Another 2.5 years and that becomes more than a quarter of all energy production. The real question is how long can the doubling every 2.5 years (and it has actually been growing at a faster rate than that, but I am being conservative) - how long can this rate of geometric growth last. Well so far it has been doing that for four or five decades and there are no signs of it slowing down. Compare this capacity with the current capacity of LFTR which is 0 watts. And by a curious coincidence zero is also the amount of money spent on LFTR RD over the last 40 years. Yes I know. It is a dead technology. For whatever reason. I want to know if I really understand you correctly, are you saying that a major problem (or even a minor problem) with using Thorium for energy is that there isn't enough of it? Is that really your position? No it is not my position and never has been
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 11:47 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't narrow it down too much. Je m'accuse. I was one of them. My point was that conspiracy theories, in the sense of power elites secretly cooperating to further their own interests against the interests of the majority are not, unfortunately, unusual events in History. We know of countless examples of this happening in the past. I think it requires some magical thinking to assume that this type of behaviour is absent from our own times. I further pointed out that broadly discrediting any hypothesis that some elites might be conspiring against the common good, in broad strokes, seems to benefit precisely the ones in power. Furthermore, thanks to Snowden, we now have strong evidence of a large-scale conspiracy by western governments that I would not believe one year ago. In this case I'm referring to the secret implementation of global and total surveillance, with our tax money, by the people we elected, to spy on us, infringing on constitutions. I can't help but notice the very common rhetorical trick of using the nutty conspiracy theories (UFOs, the Illuminati, fake moon landing, etc.) to discredit the much more mundane and reasonable suspicions of elites abusing their power. The paper you cite in this thread uses that trick too. This broad denial of the existence of conspiracies is silly, if you think about it. The official explanation for 9/11 is a conspiracy theory: some religious arab fundamentalists conspired to create a global network of terrorist cells with the objective of attacking western civilisation. They hijacked planes and sent them into buildings and so on. If you don't believe in this explanation, you are then forced to believe in some other conspiracy. Of course conspiracies exist. The current denial of this quite obvious fact feels Orwellian, to be honest. To state conspiracy in some domain or level seriously, you have to be precise and point accurately. Who, what, where, when, why? Just referring to elites or entire industries, of which I am often guilty, doesn't suffice. Of course, especially in a court of law. However, given the enormous information asymmetry between the elected and the electors, this is usually impossible. If we want to improve our understanding on how society works, it makes sense to observe human behaviours. Then we can look for plausible explanations that fit these behaviours. In the case of total surveillance, attempts to censor the Internet and prohibition, the official explanations look implausible to me, while some degree of conspiracy looks more plausible -- which doesn't mean that I have the access to sufficient information to answer your questions rigorously. We can discuss priors and likelihoods with what we know. It's just empirical science, really. That's a sort of conspiracy comfort tale, which has the same effect as denying damaging backdoor deals on a large scale exist: inaction, no coordination, less people on the streets. The distinction is not trivial, as the comfort tale is abused as some explanatory weed, that illuminates all aspects of world politics, the hopeless vista of the speaker's position; everything they disagree with being part of the grand conspiracy and everything they agree with the opposite. The comfort tale use is not serious and more a psychology thing istm. PGC Agreed. Binary thinking and one-size-fits-all explanations are the hallmarks of fundamentalism. When doing intellectual exploration we have to be careful, these traps are everywhere. The vaccine against them is doubt. Cheers Telmo. Best, Telmo. On 5 April 2014 22:31, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: It was in one of the climate threads. Le 5 avr. 2014 09:11, LizR lizj...@gmail.com a écrit : On 4 April 2014 19:35, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-04-04 1:29 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds They Believe Conspiracy Theories Ironically, it looks like they are conspiring to silence any mention of this fact! http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-intimidate-journal-into-retracting-paper-that-finds-they-believe-conspiracy-theories PS I know this isn't about everything but there seems to be some interest in this topic on this forum. It is strange, because when I did mention that here, the answer was that it was perfectly normal and rational to believe in global conspiracy theories and irrational not to. That sounds a slightly strange view, imho. Who said that, may I ask, and in what context? (I will be sending my ninja assassins round to deal with them later, as per the standing instructions of the Grand High Adepts of the
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 5 April 2014 23:30, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 11:47 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't narrow it down too much. Je m'accuse. I was one of them. My point was that conspiracy theories, in the sense of power elites secretly cooperating to further their own interests against the interests of the majority are not, unfortunately, unusual events in History. We know of countless examples of this happening in the past. I think it requires some magical thinking to assume that this type of behaviour is absent from our own times. I further pointed out that broadly discrediting any hypothesis that some elites might be conspiring against the common good, in broad strokes, seems to benefit precisely the ones in power. Furthermore, thanks to Snowden, we now have strong evidence of a large-scale conspiracy by western governments that I would not believe one year ago. In this case I'm referring to the secret implementation of global and total surveillance, with our tax money, by the people we elected, to spy on us, infringing on constitutions. I can't help but notice the very common rhetorical trick of using the nutty conspiracy theories (UFOs, the Illuminati, fake moon landing, etc.) to discredit the much more mundane and reasonable suspicions of elites abusing their power. The paper you cite in this thread uses that trick too. This broad denial of the existence of conspiracies is silly, if you think about it. The official explanation for 9/11 is a conspiracy theory: some religious arab fundamentalists conspired to create a global network of terrorist cells with the objective of attacking western civilisation. They hijacked planes and sent them into buildings and so on. If you don't believe in this explanation, you are then forced to believe in some other conspiracy. Of course conspiracies exist. The current denial of this quite obvious fact feels Orwellian, to be honest. OK, it seems likely that conspiracies exist, however it seems unlikely that the IPCC is part of one of them (I've lost track of whether you're claiming this or not, so please let me know) because the ruling interests are in favour of business as usual - i.e. there is almost certainly a conspiracy to discredit the science. The fact that they will use the idea of conspiracy theories to do this is indeed Orwellian, not to mention ironic. How does the paper use this trick? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 6 Apr 2014, at 2:23 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: It's just showing you that your awareness extends beyond your personal definition of here and now Finally you got to it. It was a precognitive dream. I have had many, an enormous number throughout my life in fact, so I don't think we need to beat about the bush here. Some dreams foretell or synchronistically coincide with near-future events (usually cloaked in some symbolic representation). Period. Jung certainly thought so. We cannot explain this away. Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
Telmo and Liz: Conspiracy theory my foot. It cuts into profits. Moloch is talking. Gullibility (even the negative one) is based on ignorance, when I first heard about the global warming threat (~ 30 years ago) I joked: 'my climate-log is incomplete for the past 30 (300?) million years', so I reserved my opinion' until I got more info realizing that recent societal activity (industrial included) contributes to the greenhouse effect vastly. Then I changed my position and became a fighter against Big Money nonchallantly ruining the Earth for the profit in polluting freely. Best: John M On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 11:47 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't narrow it down too much. Je m'accuse. I was one of them. My point was that conspiracy theories, in the sense of power elites secretly cooperating to further their own interests against the interests of the majority are not, unfortunately, unusual events in History. We know of countless examples of this happening in the past. I think it requires some magical thinking to assume that this type of behaviour is absent from our own times. I further pointed out that broadly discrediting any hypothesis that some elites might be conspiring against the common good, in broad strokes, seems to benefit precisely the ones in power. Furthermore, thanks to Snowden, we now have strong evidence of a large-scale conspiracy by western governments that I would not believe one year ago. In this case I'm referring to the secret implementation of global and total surveillance, with our tax money, by the people we elected, to spy on us, infringing on constitutions. I can't help but notice the very common rhetorical trick of using the nutty conspiracy theories (UFOs, the Illuminati, fake moon landing, etc.) to discredit the much more mundane and reasonable suspicions of elites abusing their power. The paper you cite in this thread uses that trick too. This broad denial of the existence of conspiracies is silly, if you think about it. The official explanation for 9/11 is a conspiracy theory: some religious arab fundamentalists conspired to create a global network of terrorist cells with the objective of attacking western civilisation. They hijacked planes and sent them into buildings and so on. If you don't believe in this explanation, you are then forced to believe in some other conspiracy. Of course conspiracies exist. The current denial of this quite obvious fact feels Orwellian, to be honest. Best, Telmo. On 5 April 2014 22:31, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: It was in one of the climate threads. Le 5 avr. 2014 09:11, LizR lizj...@gmail.com a écrit : On 4 April 2014 19:35, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-04-04 1:29 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds They Believe Conspiracy Theories Ironically, it looks like they are conspiring to silence any mention of this fact! http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-intimidate-journal-into-retracting-paper-that-finds-they-believe-conspiracy-theories PS I know this isn't about everything but there seems to be some interest in this topic on this forum. It is strange, because when I did mention that here, the answer was that it was perfectly normal and rational to believe in global conspiracy theories and irrational not to. That sounds a slightly strange view, imho. Who said that, may I ask, and in what context? (I will be sending my ninja assassins round to deal with them later, as per the standing instructions of the Grand High Adepts of the Illuminati...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 9:40 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 April 2014 23:30, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 11:47 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't narrow it down too much. Je m'accuse. I was one of them. My point was that conspiracy theories, in the sense of power elites secretly cooperating to further their own interests against the interests of the majority are not, unfortunately, unusual events in History. We know of countless examples of this happening in the past. I think it requires some magical thinking to assume that this type of behaviour is absent from our own times. I further pointed out that broadly discrediting any hypothesis that some elites might be conspiring against the common good, in broad strokes, seems to benefit precisely the ones in power. Furthermore, thanks to Snowden, we now have strong evidence of a large-scale conspiracy by western governments that I would not believe one year ago. In this case I'm referring to the secret implementation of global and total surveillance, with our tax money, by the people we elected, to spy on us, infringing on constitutions. I can't help but notice the very common rhetorical trick of using the nutty conspiracy theories (UFOs, the Illuminati, fake moon landing, etc.) to discredit the much more mundane and reasonable suspicions of elites abusing their power. The paper you cite in this thread uses that trick too. This broad denial of the existence of conspiracies is silly, if you think about it. The official explanation for 9/11 is a conspiracy theory: some religious arab fundamentalists conspired to create a global network of terrorist cells with the objective of attacking western civilisation. They hijacked planes and sent them into buildings and so on. If you don't believe in this explanation, you are then forced to believe in some other conspiracy. Of course conspiracies exist. The current denial of this quite obvious fact feels Orwellian, to be honest. OK, it seems likely that conspiracies exist, however it seems unlikely that the IPCC is part of one of them (I've lost track of whether you're claiming this or not, so please let me know) I'm not saying that. On the matter of AGW, I am simply skeptical of the level of certainty that is claimed for the models or that subsidising wind power or solar power is a wise corse of action. Then I also suspect of opportunism, in the case of the very shady business of carbon credits. because the ruling interests are in favour of business as usual - i.e. there is almost certainly a conspiracy to discredit the science. Sure, I also find it quite likely that powerful fossil fuel companies are lobbying or using even dirtier tricks to discredit AGW theory. On the other hand, this says nothing about the truth status of AGW theory. The fact that they will use the idea of conspiracy theories to do this is indeed Orwellian, not to mention ironic. Indeed. Governments are doing this too, by the way: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ How does the paper use this trick? I find this paper to be a convoluted ad hominem. It finds a correlation between rejection of AGW and a number of ridiculous beliefs -- and I don't doubt this result, but then goes on to frame this as a possible reasons for the rejection of science. There is nothing wrong in social scientists studying the interaction between scientific activity and popular opinions. The problem is that this paper takes a very naif view of science, where instead of scientific theories we have just science, and instead of the rejection of scientific theories we have the rejection of science. A not so hidden pre-assumption of the paper is that scientific theories can only be doubted for irrational reasons. Then it finds a group of people with irrational beliefs that also question certain theories, and goes on to propose that irrational ideation is the reason for the rejection of such theories. The problem is that, unfortunately, irrational ideation is still the norm in our society. See the percentage of the population that still believes in ancient desert religions. I bet you that a correlation could also be found between popular acceptance of the AGW theory and the belief in crystal healing, feng shui or the health benefits of veganism. Then one could use this correlation to arrive at the opposite conclusion of the paper -- that science is supported by irrational belief -- and it would be equally invalid. All tribes have their irrational beliefs, this is not news and it tell us nothing about the truth status of scientific theories. Cheers, Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 4/5/2014 12:40 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 April 2014 23:30, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 11:47 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't narrow it down too much. Je m'accuse. I was one of them. My point was that conspiracy theories, in the sense of power elites secretly cooperating to further their own interests against the interests of the majority are not, unfortunately, unusual events in History. We know of countless examples of this happening in the past. I think it requires some magical thinking to assume that this type of behaviour is absent from our own times. I further pointed out that broadly discrediting any hypothesis that some elites might be conspiring against the common good, in broad strokes, seems to benefit precisely the ones in power. Furthermore, thanks to Snowden, we now have strong evidence of a large-scale conspiracy by western governments that I would not believe one year ago. In this case I'm referring to the secret implementation of global and total surveillance, with our tax money, by the people we elected, to spy on us, infringing on constitutions. I can't help but notice the very common rhetorical trick of using the nutty conspiracy theories (UFOs, the Illuminati, fake moon landing, etc.) to discredit the much more mundane and reasonable suspicions of elites abusing their power. The paper you cite in this thread uses that trick too. This broad denial of the existence of conspiracies is silly, if you think about it. The official explanation for 9/11 is a conspiracy theory: some religious arab fundamentalists conspired to create a global network of terrorist cells with the objective of attacking western civilisation. They hijacked planes and sent them into buildings and so on. If you don't believe in this explanation, you are then forced to believe in some other conspiracy. Of course conspiracies exist. The current denial of this quite obvious fact feels Orwellian, to be honest. OK, it seems likely that conspiracies exist, however it seems unlikely that the IPCC is part of one of them (I've lost track of whether you're claiming this or not, so please let me know) because the ruling interests are in favour of business as usual - i.e. there is almost certainly a conspiracy to discredit the science. The fact that they will use the idea of conspiracy theories to do this is indeed Orwellian, not to mention ironic. How does the paper use this trick? I think Telmo makes conspiracies ubiquitous by calling any kind of cooperative effort which is not publicized a conspiracy - like Eisenhower's conspiracy to invade France. Legally a conspiracy is planning and preparation by two or more people to commit a crime. So most of what rich and powerful people do to keep themselves rich and powerful at the expense of others is not legally a conspiracy because there's no crime - the rich and powerful use laws, not break them. But in common parlance a conspiracy *theory* refers to some group doing something nefarious while pretending to do something benign, and especially something contrary to their stated goals, e.g. Catholic clergy conspiring to abuse children. It doesn't even have to be illegal, e.g. tobacco companies conspiring to obfuscate scientific evidence that smoking caused lung cancer. It's not some group doing a bad thing that you might well expect them to do - like muslim fanatics crashing an airliner. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 4/5/2014 3:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Sure, I also find it quite likely that powerful fossil fuel companies are lobbying or using even dirtier tricks to discredit AGW theory. On the other hand, this says nothing about the truth status of AGW theory. Doesn't it? If it weren't true, then dirty tricks wouldn't be needed to discredit it, would they? It could be discredited like the flat earth, creationism, and cigarettes-are-good-for-you theories. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:01 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/5/2014 12:40 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 April 2014 23:30, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 11:47 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't narrow it down too much. Je m'accuse. I was one of them. My point was that conspiracy theories, in the sense of power elites secretly cooperating to further their own interests against the interests of the majority are not, unfortunately, unusual events in History. We know of countless examples of this happening in the past. I think it requires some magical thinking to assume that this type of behaviour is absent from our own times. I further pointed out that broadly discrediting any hypothesis that some elites might be conspiring against the common good, in broad strokes, seems to benefit precisely the ones in power. Furthermore, thanks to Snowden, we now have strong evidence of a large-scale conspiracy by western governments that I would not believe one year ago. In this case I'm referring to the secret implementation of global and total surveillance, with our tax money, by the people we elected, to spy on us, infringing on constitutions. I can't help but notice the very common rhetorical trick of using the nutty conspiracy theories (UFOs, the Illuminati, fake moon landing, etc.) to discredit the much more mundane and reasonable suspicions of elites abusing their power. The paper you cite in this thread uses that trick too. This broad denial of the existence of conspiracies is silly, if you think about it. The official explanation for 9/11 is a conspiracy theory: some religious arab fundamentalists conspired to create a global network of terrorist cells with the objective of attacking western civilisation. They hijacked planes and sent them into buildings and so on. If you don't believe in this explanation, you are then forced to believe in some other conspiracy. Of course conspiracies exist. The current denial of this quite obvious fact feels Orwellian, to be honest. OK, it seems likely that conspiracies exist, however it seems unlikely that the IPCC is part of one of them (I've lost track of whether you're claiming this or not, so please let me know) because the ruling interests are in favour of business as usual - i.e. there is almost certainly a conspiracy to discredit the science. The fact that they will use the idea of conspiracy theories to do this is indeed Orwellian, not to mention ironic. How does the paper use this trick? I think Telmo makes conspiracies ubiquitous by calling any kind of cooperative effort which is not publicized a conspiracy - like Eisenhower's conspiracy to invade France. Legally a conspiracy is planning and preparation by two or more people to commit a crime. So most of what rich and powerful people do to keep themselves rich and powerful at the expense of others is not legally a conspiracy because there's no crime - the rich and powerful use laws, not break them. But in common parlance a conspiracy *theory* refers to some group doing something nefarious while pretending to do something benign, and especially something contrary to their stated goals, e.g. Catholic clergy conspiring to abuse children. Or prohibition, or the implementation of anti-constitutional total surveillance, or starting wars under false pretences, or using government agencies like the IRS to harass political opponents, or trying to silence journalists. We have compelling evidence that governments have been engaging in all of these types of conspiracy very recently, and they mach your definition. So my point is that it is not reasonable to dismiss the possibility of a conspiracy by government actors just on the grounds of it being a conspiracy theory. We need more to decide one way or the other. Telmo. It doesn't even have to be illegal, e.g. tobacco companies conspiring to obfuscate scientific evidence that smoking caused lung cancer. It's not some group doing a bad thing that you might well expect them to do - like muslim fanatics crashing an airliner. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/5/2014 3:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Sure, I also find it quite likely that powerful fossil fuel companies are lobbying or using even dirtier tricks to discredit AGW theory. On the other hand, this says nothing about the truth status of AGW theory. Doesn't it? If it weren't true, then dirty tricks wouldn't be needed to discredit it, would they? It could be discredited like the flat earth, creationism, and cigarettes-are-good-for-you theories. If that was true, the world would be free from religious superstition and electing a president that claims to believe in a book of old desert myths would be unthinkable. Telmo. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 4/5/2014 4:13 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:01 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/5/2014 12:40 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 April 2014 23:30, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 11:47 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't narrow it down too much. Je m'accuse. I was one of them. My point was that conspiracy theories, in the sense of power elites secretly cooperating to further their own interests against the interests of the majority are not, unfortunately, unusual events in History. We know of countless examples of this happening in the past. I think it requires some magical thinking to assume that this type of behaviour is absent from our own times. I further pointed out that broadly discrediting any hypothesis that some elites might be conspiring against the common good, in broad strokes, seems to benefit precisely the ones in power. Furthermore, thanks to Snowden, we now have strong evidence of a large-scale conspiracy by western governments that I would not believe one year ago. In this case I'm referring to the secret implementation of global and total surveillance, with our tax money, by the people we elected, to spy on us, infringing on constitutions. I can't help but notice the very common rhetorical trick of using the nutty conspiracy theories (UFOs, the Illuminati, fake moon landing, etc.) to discredit the much more mundane and reasonable suspicions of elites abusing their power. The paper you cite in this thread uses that trick too. This broad denial of the existence of conspiracies is silly, if you think about it. The official explanation for 9/11 is a conspiracy theory: some religious arab fundamentalists conspired to create a global network of terrorist cells with the objective of attacking western civilisation. They hijacked planes and sent them into buildings and so on. If you don't believe in this explanation, you are then forced to believe in some other conspiracy. Of course conspiracies exist. The current denial of this quite obvious fact feels Orwellian, to be honest. OK, it seems likely that conspiracies exist, however it seems unlikely that the IPCC is part of one of them (I've lost track of whether you're claiming this or not, so please let me know) because the ruling interests are in favour of business as usual - i.e. there is almost certainly a conspiracy to discredit the science. The fact that they will use the idea of conspiracy theories to do this is indeed Orwellian, not to mention ironic. How does the paper use this trick? I think Telmo makes conspiracies ubiquitous by calling any kind of cooperative effort which is not publicized a conspiracy - like Eisenhower's conspiracy to invade France. Legally a conspiracy is planning and preparation by two or more people to commit a crime. So most of what rich and powerful people do to keep themselves rich and powerful at the expense of others is not legally a conspiracy because there's no crime - the rich and powerful use laws, not break them. But in common parlance a conspiracy *theory* refers to some group doing something nefarious while pretending to do something benign, and especially something contrary to their stated goals, e.g. Catholic clergy conspiring to abuse children. Or prohibition, That makes my point. Prohibition wasn't illegal, it was a law and it was promoted and passed by people who had openly advocated it for years - and for some good reasons. But you want to call it a conspiracy just because you disagree with it. You might as well call the civil rights act of 1963 a conspiracy. or the implementation of anti-constitutional total surveillance, It's not clear that collecting records of who calls overseas is unconstitutional; no court has ruled it such. or starting wars under false pretences, Yes, the the Iraq war was very bad - but was it a conspiracy. It wasn't secret, the neo-cons in the the Bush administration had advocated military overthrow of Sadam Hussein for years. The even had a website, Plan for a New American Century, which hosted scholarly(?) papers about the mideast and why the U.S. should make Lybia, Syria, Iraq, and Iran into western style democracies. or using government agencies like the IRS to harass political opponents, or trying to silence journalists. That's an invented charge. The IRS was just doing it's job screening organizations that claimed 501c status, which forbids *any* political activity. We have compelling evidence that governments have been
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 4/5/2014 4:18 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/5/2014 3:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Sure, I also find it quite likely that powerful fossil fuel companies are lobbying or using even dirtier tricks to discredit AGW theory. On the other hand, this says nothing about the truth status of AGW theory. Doesn't it? If it weren't true, then dirty tricks wouldn't be needed to discredit it, would they? It could be discredited like the flat earth, creationism, and cigarettes-are-good-for-you theories. If that was true, the world would be free from religious superstition So do you classify religion as a conspiracy? Do you think clergy are really all atheists and are just conspiring to fool others? Brent and electing a president that claims to believe in a book of old desert myths would be unthinkable. Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 05:42:10AM +1000, Kim Jones wrote: Finally you got to it. It was a precognitive dream. I have had many, an enormous number throughout my life in fact, so I don't think we need to beat about the bush here. Some dreams foretell or synchronistically coincide with near-future events (usually cloaked in some symbolic representation). Period. Jung certainly thought so. We cannot explain this away. Not sure about that. It's happened maybe 2-3 times to me in my whole life. I would call that rate coincidence. Not statistically significant. YMMV :). Also, presumably by chance, some people's rate of precognitive dreams would be much higher, just like some people are more accident prone than others. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
