Kevin's Watch Forum Index
 HomeHome   MemberlistMemberlist   RegisterRegister   SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   FAQFAQ   StatisticsStatistics  SudokuSudoku   Phoogle MapPhoogle Map 
 AlbumAlbum StoresStores   StoresItems Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Where's the bees???
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Kevin's Watch Forum Index -> Hile Troy's Think-Tank
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Zarathustra
Be True


Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 17417

Thanks: 37
Thanked 174 Times in 167 Posts


20418 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:


PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Mhoram, I stand by my womb analogy, and I don't see your objections as relevant. The earth gave birth to us, and we alter and stress the earth in the process, very much like babies and mothers. Sometimes babies even kill their mothers in the process. Are you suggesting that the earth needs to abort us to prevent its death?
Lord Mhoram wrote:

Frankly, the earth has the power to create, and it has the power to destroy.


Apparently so! Smile

I think we should try to take care of the planet the best we can. However, our future is in the stars. We'll leave this planet, because ultimately--like any mother--it will die. We can't stay in the womb forever.
Lord Mhoram wrote:

If the earth didn't care what we did, then it wouldn't be reacting to our stimuli.
Hmm . . . I'm not sure what to make of this. Surely you don't mean this literally. "Reactions" to stimuli don't require caring.

Peven, of course the earth is here for our use. It's here. And we use it. But, as I pointed out, I don't believe this is designed or purposeful. It's just a fortuitous accident. Just like us. [I wonder if you'd have a similar problem with me saying that the earth is here for dolphins' use? Or . . bees?]
Peven wrote:

why do these attitudes fall along party lines? do you have any idea who a certain Republican president called Teddy Roosevelt was? one of the fathers of modern conservationism? helped to begin our national park system and talked about man's responsibility to be good stewards of the earth.
That's like telling a black man that Lincoln freed the slaves. You can't describe today's politics in terms of isolated politicians of a century or more ago. I'm glad we can point to good deeds done by members of both the major parties. But we are polarized today in ways we weren't in the past. Unfortunately.

Peven wrote:

the only reason these kinds of issues fall within party lines nowadays is because some slick Republicans, in bed with big oil, lumber, mining, etc, have conned their followers into thinking it is wimpy and un-American to care about the environment. it is ironic that a party that depicts themselves as "conservative" mocks the ideals of "conservation".
That's a ridiculous conspiracy theory. No one conned me into thinking it is un-American or wimpy to care about the environment. (I DO care about the environment: I want it around for my use and enjoyment. Smile ). Can you produce one shred of evidence for such a wild claim? Is any republican politician on record espousing the "wimpy and un-American" position of environmentalism?

On the other hand, I could produce LOTS of quotes from liberal politicians blaming humans--particularly American conservative humans--for the world's plight. They usually say things like, "in bed with big oil." Hey . . . that sounds like you! Maybe you're the one who is taking his marching orders from his favorite politicians. Smile
Peven wrote:

you insist that humans only cause extinctions through direct actions, such as hunting or habitat destruction. well, habitat destruction IS the number one cause for population declines these days, but among the biggest causes is also the introduction of alien species.


Actually, I've mentioned several times the problem of introducing species to habitats they didn't previously live in. I made no distinction between intensional or unintensional. I agree that in the end it's the same. However, that doesn't seem to be relevant to the dwindling bees.

Peven wrote:
i also don't see how the fact that bees are quasi-domesticated (they aren't "farmed") has to do with the issue either. it doesn't make them any less vulnerable to man-made chemicals, radio-waves, noise pollution, genetically engineered crops, etc.
All of those factors have been around much longer than the past few months--which is the time frame that the this problem became evident. The issue of "quasi-domestication" is relevant because, out of all the extinctions you listed to make your argument (or indeed, all extinctions due to humans), none were of "quasi-domesticated" animals that I'm aware of. So this difference seems to balance out the other side of the probability argument--an argument which you are making on the basis of a single similarity: rapid decline in population. But that similarity can be traced to known factors (which I've listed twice now), and none of those factors seem to be in play in this case. Thus, it seems we are dealing with something entirely new, not seen before.

That's not to say that humans aren't the cause. It's just to point out that your logic--which depends on this phenomenon being similar to examples in the past--breaks down due to fundamental differences from those examples.

Here's what I've learn from a little research:
Quote:

link
Any treatment for colony collapse disorder is confounded by its many possible causes: pathogens; deadly mites; lack of genetic diversity in the bees; widespread pesticide use and even urban sprawl that spreads homes and streets across wild fields of clover, alfalfa and flowers, all sources of bee food.

It may simply be a combination of all of these things, said Hackett.

Marla Spivak, a researcher and bee expert at the University of Minnesota who attended the USDA summit, has studied the Varroa mite, which over the last 20 years has become a major threat to commercial honey bees.

First discovered in the United States in 1987, the Varroa mite weakens the bee's immune system. The mite kills off most bee colonies within a year or two after invading. Beekeepers use pesticides to control the mites, but Spivak has studied ways to breed honey bees that are resistant to it.

"Bees have been dying like crazy just from these parasitic mites alone," said Spivak.

http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/02/_2007_us_fruit.html
Reports of the situation began to come in over the fall and winter, but scientists don't yet have an answer. It might be a disease, a pest or an environmental factor or even a combination of effects making bees vulnerable to an existing problem. Now, the bees have sealed themselves inside the hives to stay warm, and the keepers can't open the structures until spring.

No single cause drought chemicals/pesticides, mites, bacteria, a fungus or virus seems to be common to all the events or even indicated as a cause in any single event. Extreme weather and temperature fluctuations seem to play a major role stressing the bees and weakening their immune systems.


I even left in parts that support your argument, just to be fair. I realize that humans are a likely cause. But so are a host of other factors. If scientists don't know which factor is the most probable, how is it that you know which is most probable? Could it be that you're merely spouting off your preconceptions, prejudices, and assumptions?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cail
Grin Reaper

MaleRanyhyn
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 38688

Thanks: 17
Thanked 117 Times in 108 Posts

Location: Hell of the Upside Down Sinners
21347 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Member of THOOLAH1 Haruchai1 2010 Watchies


PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Mhoram wrote:
Well, look. I'm not going to debate as some have earlier whether a human creation is as "natural" as an object created by nature itself or not, but just as I cannot deny that humans are natural, you can't deny that humans and their post-Industrial Revolution creations have been destroying, on a huge scale, earth's natural creations. The ozone layer is just one example of that. Whether or not the earth regains its equilibrium is irrelevant. What we are talking about is the way the earth is forced, by actions that I am arguing are unnatural, to regain the equilibrium that we disrupt. The earth will probably regain its equilibrium eventually. But by the very nature that it is forced by our actions to scramble to do so, goes against the notion of it "not giving a shit." If the earth didn't care what we did, then it wouldn't be reacting to our stimuli. To use the ozone layer example again, we eroded it, and the hole is being "repaired." If the earth didn't give a shit, it wouldn't be working to close that hole (albeit with the help of our decreased emissions).
First of all, you're anthropomorphizing the Earth. There's no conscious effort on the part of the Earth to "fix" anything we've done.

Now I agree that we are the stewards of the Earth, and we'd damn well better take care of it better than we are, but that doesn't change the fact that the Earth, and everything in or on it, is a resource that's available for us to use.

The fact that the Earth will find its equilibrium after we're gone most certainly isn't irrelevant. Our time here is temporary, and we all need to recognize that. Our hubris has led to an assumption that we're as eternal as the Earth. We're not. We'll get wiped out by a comet, the SuperFlu, or war, or we'll evolve to something else, or we'll move on as Malik suggests.
_________________
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Phoogle Map
Zarathustra
Be True


Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 17417

Thanks: 37
Thanked 174 Times in 167 Posts


20418 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:


PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Peven, you seem to think that someone like me (a Conservative who has been conned by Big Oil supporting Republicans) doesn't care about the environment, when all I'm suggesting is that natural causes are one likely reason--among many--for the bee problem. That position has telling implications. Your arguement seems to imply that a person can't be a "true environmentalist" unless he recognizes that mankind is the most likely cause of all environmental problems. Anyone like me who cautions us to not ignore natural causes is deemed an anti-environmentalist.

I think this is part of the attitude I was talking about with Mhoram, "the blame man first attitude." And as he admits, it is a quasi-religious, spiritual attitude--complete with its own version of guilt and Original Sin: being born a greedy, consuming human. As I suspected, there's a lot more than science going into the positions stated here.

[Note: I was careful to use "you seem to think" and "your argument seems to imply," becuase I know you didn't say this explicitly. It's just a hunch, based on your resistance to my position, and your conspiratorial characterization of it as the product of a Republican con.]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peven
Giantfriend


Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 333

Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Times in 1 Posts


0 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:


PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Malik, this all began not because i said that only humans could be responsible for what is going on with the bees, but because you rejected the idea that humans are the most likely cause. i have not rejected the possibility that whatever is negatively effecting the bees may be non-human, only that i don't think it is probable.

the info you posted points out a very good pov that i had failed to cover in that it may just be a combination of factors had reached something of a tipping point in effecting the bees.

Malik, would you be willing to send me $0.05 every time a republican/conservative politician or spokesperson utters the term "tree-hugger" or "animal rights nut", or "nature freak", etc, etc.? have you heard the mocking voices guys like Limbough or Hannity use when doing their impressions of conservationists/environmentalists? i'd classify their depictions as wimpy and degrading. combined those two alone have tens of millions of listeners each week, so don't try to say they don't represent many republicans.

republicans have accused conservationists for endangering our national security for blocking oil drilling in protected federal lands, so yeah, i'd classify that as republicans portraying conservationists as un-American.

it isn't republican representatives who push through bills to set aside lands to be protected from mining or drilling or development, or laws to help protect endangered animals or programs to help reestablish populations of endangered/protected species. in fact, it is this administration that has rolled back environmental protections on everything from forest lands to salmon to clean air and water regulations in favor of big business interests. so, if i associate republican/conservative with those who are anti-conservation, or with those who don't give the environment high priority, it is with good reason and a clear cut track record to base it on.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
wayfriend
whilom witling

Male
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Posts: 18900

Thanks: 11
Thanked 219 Times in 202 Posts

Location: The world of the Bowling Green Massacre
43325 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
3 Member of Linden's Army


PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Malik23 wrote:
Your arguement seems to imply that a person can't be a "true environmentalist" unless he recognizes that mankind is the most likely cause of all environmental problems. Anyone like me who cautions us to not ignore natural causes is deemed an anti-environmentalist.

Pardon me, but I don't see how you can say that someone who recognizes mankind is the most likely cause would ignore natural causes. If that's the nub of your argument, it's plain wrong.

Malik23 wrote:
I think this is part of the attitude I was talking about with Mhoram, "the blame man first attitude."

As has been pointed out a dozen times now, this is a fact-based position, and does not necessarilly, or even usually, come with an attitude.

In fact, there are almost none of these "humans are evil" people actually walking around, they are pretty much a figment invented to support logic such as yours. People say: Humans caused x, y, and z. Then the witty reposte is: there you go, humans are to blame for everything. Then there is the postulation that there's all these people who blame humans for everything, there must really hate homo sapiens in general. QED. Except its a conclusion based on a fabrication.

However, the "lets not talk about man harming the environment all the time" attitude is just as much of an attitude. One which lacks any fact-based position. And it comes complete with its own version of a quasi-religious fairytale escapism: everything is fine, it's just liberals making a stink, they hate everything humans do.
_________________
FEAR: Yet hearken well, aspirant bold!
I, tho' a stranger, but whilom friend,
Hold the odds against thee now.
Straightly be adjured, witling --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Zarathustra
Be True


Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 17417

Thanks: 37
Thanked 174 Times in 167 Posts


20418 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:


PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wayfriend wrote:
Pardon me, but I don't see how you can say that someone who recognizes mankind is the most likely cause would ignore natural causes. If that's the nub of your argument, it's plain wrong.
I didn't make that point at all. I can caution people to not rule out natural causes without claiming that they are ignoring those causes. I don't think natural causes are being ignored--especially by the scientists and bee experts actually investigating the problem. Again, I'm speaking to the "blame man first" attitude, which you seemed to have been the leader. Yes, I know that you didn't actively say: "Ignore all natural causes." But if you recognize that at this point in our ignorance it is impossible to tell which is the most likely cause (as has been Peven's point), then we are in agreement and this debate can stop! Yahoo! Smile

Quote:
As has been pointed out a dozen times now, this is a fact-based position, and does not necessarilly, or even usually, come with an attitude.
I think the nature of humans is such that one's attitudes are inherently difficult to separate from one's scientific method. That's the whole reason the scientific method was invented: because objectivity is inherently difficult. I think if you were honest, you'd admit that your worldview, attitude, and politics colors even your observation of the facts. If not, you'd be a unique human among 6 billion flawed persons.
Quote:

In fact, there are almost none of these "humans are evil" people actually walking around, they are pretty much a figment invented to support logic such as yours. People say: Humans caused x, y, and z. Then the witty reposte is: there you go, humans are to blame for everything. Then there is the postulation that there's all these people who blame humans for everything, there must really hate homo sapiens in general. QED. Except its a conclusion based on a fabrication.
It is certainly not a fabrication that some people think humans are the worst thing to have ever evolved. Even Lord Mhoram claimed that the existence of humans has led to more harm than good. You don't have to look far to find real examples of this. However, I'm not basing my logic on these people. I recognize that even among people with attitudes opposing mine, there can be scientific truths. That's why I've said repeatedly that I agree that humans may in fact be the cause here. My argument has been directed more to people's certainty and attitudes than the claim that humans are the cause. I can't say humans aren't the cause because no one knows what the cause is. And that certainly includes me.

Quote:
However, the "lets not talk about man harming the environment all the time" attitude is just as much of an attitude. One which lacks any fact-based position. And it comes complete with its own version of a quasi-religious fairytale escapism: everything is fine, it's just liberals making a stink, they hate everything humans do.


That's a blatant distortion of my view, given how many times now I've admitted that humans may be the cause. In fact, it seems to be the liberal who don't want to talk about the issue of mankind's involvement, because they presuppose his involvement is indisputable. Conservatives are willing to debate this issue as much as you want.

I do, however, admit that this is an attitude. I openly admit that my attitude of "the world owes me, I don't owe the world" is a view I've adopted for personal reasons. I didn't choose to be here. My existence has been forced upon me. Evolution--even as a blind process--has forced me in the position of carving my existence out of the earth's substance. I can either use the earth, or die. That's an easy choice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peven
Giantfriend


Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 333

Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Times in 1 Posts


0 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:


PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Malik, you keep going on about the "scientific method" and then dismiss those who are starting out with a theory about the source of the bees' decline. fyi, the first step of the "scientific method" is to state a theory. then to go observe and record info to see if that theory holds up.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Prebe
Sure as shit not rolling on shabbat

Male
Joined: 08 Aug 2005
Posts: 7917

Thanks: 8
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

Location: People's Republic of Denmark
895 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Trumpet


PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some excellent posts the Peven. I spent some of my time yesterday fuming over Maliks "the conservatives don't lable environmentalists as un-american whimps". It turns out that any response I thought of making is well covered by your posts. Saved me some time in which I can work. Thanks a lot Sad

Malik wrote:
I can either use the earth, or die. That's an easy choice.
True. But there is a difference between using, using thoughtlessly, abusing and using up.

You want to see 100% proof that something man does harms earth, before you stop doing it. And even with a 100% proof you still say that we can "just adapt" because that's what we do. That's not caring for the environment.

We have a knowledge base right now that tells us what moderne Homo sapiens most likely needs to thrive in a sustainable way. Acting based on that knowledge is environmentalism. However, It seems to be a favourite conservative pass-time to brand anyone who participated in gathering that knowledge as eco-weenies. And why? because they might have dared to question unlimited economical growth's beneficial effects on the environment, and ultimately the survival of the next generations. Because that's what it's all about: no matter how much we screw up there is very little chance that it will ever affect you or me.


Edit:
Peven: As for science, you work with a null hypothesis (H0) - which is the complement of your hypothesis (H1). In the bee case this means that you have:

H1: Humans are to blame
H0: Humans are not to blame

Verifying H1 is done by rejecting H0, providing that the two hypotehses are indeed complemetary. This rejection needs to be made with a degree of certainty (often 95%). And that rejection is what science most often works with.

Now what you SEEM to be doing is starting out wanting to verify your H1 without giving much thought to H0. If you don't have a H0 you can't set up an experiment that will reject it.

The main problem here is defining mutually exclusive H1 and H0. I'd say it can't be done.
_________________
"I would have gone to the thesaurus for a more erudite word."
-Hashi Lebwohl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Phoogle Map
Zarathustra
Be True


Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 17417

Thanks: 37
Thanked 174 Times in 167 Posts


20418 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:


PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prebe, what's so frustrating about my claim, "conservatives don't lable environmentalists as un-american whimps" ? Just because we avoid and denounce alarmism (which you have to admit, some environmental activists--like Hollywood idiots--engage in) doesn't mean that environmentalism itself is disparaged by conservatives. We also stress a brand of environmentalism which acknowledges mankind as an intregral feature of nature, not something distinct from it. Mankind has obviously got to be part of the solution. How can he be part of the solution if he is viewed as an alien invader into nature?

Fighting against these mindsets is not the same thing as claiming all environmentalists partake in these mindsets. If you or anyone else here feels insulted, perhaps it is your own defensiveness you're bringing to the table, because I certainly have never called any environmentalists wimpy or un-American. And I challenge you both to provide quotes of prominant, mainstream conservatives who preach these ideas. There are wackos on both sides. Rush Limbaugh, for instance, certainly is an idiot when it comes to science.

Prebe wrote:
Malik wrote:
I can either use the earth, or die. That's an easy choice.
True. But there is a difference between using, using thoughtlessly, abusing and using up.

I agree completely, and I've never advocated using the earth in thoughtless, abusive ways. We won't escape to the stars anytime soon. I'd be a fool not to acknowledge that we need the earth a little while longer. My comment was intended only to combat the idea that the earth is not a resource for man. I'm talking about the idea of "using the earth" in general--and the guilt associated with that idea--not about how the earth is used. Lord Mhoram, for instance, implies that man is here to "worship" or "serve" the earth, rather than the earth being here for our use. Again, I'm not talking about "being here for" in a teleological or predestined way. I'm merely speaking in pragmatic terms.

We both agree that the earth must be used wisely. However, I disagree that one can come to that conclusion only from the attitude of the earth being more important than us. In other words, people like me who think that humans are the greatest thing to have emerged within the solar system, don't automatically think that we should abuse nature--which seems to be the assumption you and others have about us; hence your qualification of my statement above.
Prebe wrote:

You want to see 100% proof that something man does harms earth, before you stop doing it.


Not at all! I have no idea where you get that idea, since I've never said it. Again, I suspect that it comes from your assumptions and prejudices about conservatives, rather than my actual words. I would, however, agree that we shouldn't be forced to stop something 100% before we know with 100% certainty that it is causing harm. For instance, I can see how it would be prudent to cut back on CO2 emmissions, but there's no way we can all stop using oil completely tomorrow. Or, to take the bee example: surely you wouldn't suggest that the world give up cell phone technology on the hunch that it might be affecting the bees. I believe we agree on that, don't we?

Prebe wrote:
However, It seems to be a favourite conservative pass-time to brand anyone who participated in gathering that knowledge as eco-weenies.


I really am baffled as to where this idea comes from. Sure, some conservatives might belittle those fringe environmentalists who demand unrealistic solutions (like using only one square of toilet paper per poop), or environmentalists who are hypocrites (like Gore telling everyone to live in a way that he doesn't live himself ). But this is NOT our favorite passtime (mine is homebrewing beer and music Smile ). And certainly it is a stereotype for you to suggest that we belittle "anyone who participated in gathering knowledge." Come on, you've got to see that's a caricature of people with whom you disagree. You're doing exactly what you accuse us of doing. That's not helping the debate.


Prebe wrote:
And why? because they might have dared to question unlimited economical growth's beneficial effects on the environment, and ultimately the survival of the next generations.
I have no problem with you questioning unlimited economic growth. I just disagree. I don't think there is anything inherent to economic growth itself which precludes caring for the environment. Surely it is not impossible for economies to grow in ways that don't hurt the environment. Indeed, I believe this type of thinking ignores the fact that less developed countries often use dirtier, less efficient sources of energy. In the end, our environmental problems will come from technology. A new source of energy. Devices which can clean up pollution. Etc. And technological solutions are much less likely to happen in dwindling or struggling economies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wayfriend
whilom witling

Male
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Posts: 18900

Thanks: 11
Thanked 219 Times in 202 Posts

Location: The world of the Bowling Green Massacre
43325 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
3 Member of Linden's Army


PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Malik23 wrote:
If you or anyone else here feels insulted, perhaps it is your own defensiveness you're bringing to the table, because I certainly have never called any environmentalists wimpy or un-American.

You've called them plenty of such things, in fact.
    "You're just the first one who got the ball rolling on blaming mankind before we actually know the cause. Curiously, this type of premature, anti-human biased, unscientific thinking, seems especially prevalent in liberal minded people."

    "It's just your views and your reasoning seem predictably liberal and knee jerk in ways that specifically get under my skin."

    "I think this is part of the attitude I was talking about with Mhoram, 'the blame man first attitude.'"
You cast all of these negative aspersions around, and then blame others for feeling insulted by them? Does it really matter that you never said "wimpy or un-American" when you said all of this? (And I haven't even included all the times you blasted people for 'certainty' without warrant, and 'unscientificness', and the latest beauty, being defensive for mysterious reasons unrelated to anything you've said, imply imply.)
_________________
FEAR: Yet hearken well, aspirant bold!
I, tho' a stranger, but whilom friend,
Hold the odds against thee now.
Straightly be adjured, witling --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Zarathustra
Be True


Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 17417

Thanks: 37
Thanked 174 Times in 167 Posts


20418 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:


PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If, in a debate on science, I can't question the bias, the assumptions, the scientific soundness, or the methodology of the other side . . . then how can we have a scientific debate at all? These are not insults, even if you feel insulted. I'm sure creationists feel insulted when you call their theories unscientific, too. But what other word can you use for "theories" which include miracles performed by supernatural beings?

As for "liberal" . . . that's now an insult?

Knee jerk reaction means "an immediate unthinking emotional reaction produced by an event or statement to which the reacting person is highly sensitive; - in persons with strong feelings on a topic, it may be very predictable." Kind of like your reaction to my criticism. While that certainly has negative connotations, it is not an insult. It is a description--from my perspective--of an unreasonable response.

You're equating criticism with insult. If that's not knee-jerk, I don't know what is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peven
Giantfriend


Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 333

Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Times in 1 Posts


0 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:


PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prebe. good point on the hypothesis front. still, though it has been a few years since my last science class, isn't it accpetable to start out with a specific theory and then run experiments/observation to test that theory without having to come up with alternate theories along with it? if the results of the experiment/observation disprove the stated theory, then a new theory can be proposed basd on that info and the process can start again? correct? in the case of the bees, if you start out theorizing that the cause is human-related and the results show that it is not, then by process of elimination we then know to look at non-man made causes in the next step. then, propose a theory of a non-made cause, test, and continue until the answer is found. correct?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Prebe
Sure as shit not rolling on shabbat

Male
Joined: 08 Aug 2005
Posts: 7917

Thanks: 8
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

Location: People's Republic of Denmark
895 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Trumpet


PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Malik wrote:
Not at all! I have no idea where you get that idea, since I've never said it.
Your adamant oposition to the Kyoto treaty lead me to that conclusion.
Malik wrote:
Again, I suspect that it comes from your assumptions and prejudices about conservatives, rather than my actual words. I would, however, agree that we shouldn't be forced to stop something 100% before we know with 100% certainty that it is causing harm. For instance, I can see how it would be prudent to cut back on CO2 emmissions,
That's news to me, but I will not rule out the posibility that I am confusing you with other conservatives in this case.

Malik wrote:
but there's no way we can all stop using oil completely tomorrow.
Absolutely agreed. Do you think I (or even the Kyoto treaty) are advocating that?

Malik wrote:
Or, to take the bee example: surely you wouldn't suggest that the world give up cell phone technology on the hunch that it might be affecting the bees. I believe we agree on that, don't we?
Absolutely. You will notice that I even commented on how unlikely I thought the connection was.

You are right in saying that there is nothing inherently damaging to the environment about unrestrained economical growth. However, if you look around the world, I am sure you will agree that most countries growing are doing so at to high a cost to the environment, or our long term livelihood if you prefer that term.

So what I think you and I really disagree on is: when is the economic incentive strong enough to NOT take action on behalf of the environment?
_________________
"I would have gone to the thesaurus for a more erudite word."
-Hashi Lebwohl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Phoogle Map
wayfriend
whilom witling

Male
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Posts: 18900

Thanks: 11
Thanked 219 Times in 202 Posts

Location: The world of the Bowling Green Massacre
43325 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
3 Member of Linden's Army


PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Malik23 wrote:
You're equating criticism with insult. If that's not knee-jerk, I don't know what is.
I'm talking about inflamatory speech. You know what it is. I just quoted you're latest one.

Don't be inflamatory, and then tell people they are not accepting "criticsm".
_________________
FEAR: Yet hearken well, aspirant bold!
I, tho' a stranger, but whilom friend,
Hold the odds against thee now.
Straightly be adjured, witling --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Zarathustra
Be True


Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 17417

Thanks: 37
Thanked 174 Times in 167 Posts


20418 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:


PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prebe, it's true that I opposed Kyoto. However, just because I oppose that step doesn't mean that I oppose any steps. As the old argument goes: just because something must be done, doesn't mean this something must be done."

No, I don't think you're advocating 100% elimination of oil tomorrow. However, my mother did suggest to me over the weekend that the world should give up their cell phones. Early on in this discussion, I admitted that her position is coloring my responses to this debate.

Certainly growth is having an impact on the environment. But growth is inevitable, as long as humans try to improve their plight. Given that growth will happen, I think it is better to shape that growth in positive directions, rather than resist it. It's like a falling rock that's too heavy to stop; rather than futilely stand in its way, perhaps we should try to alter its path. And maybe we should also look down the road and realize that its path will inherently alter itself. The more momentum it gains, the more it is able to bounce out of its ruts into a new direction. Slowing its momentum just means that it stays within those ruts.

Ok, goofy analogy. But that's the way I see it. Given enough growth (which is inevitable), the economy will provide a solution itself. It takes research money, and capital investment in new technologies. Cries for conservation, or cuts in production, will not stop the growth. It will only put the brakes upon economies that need to get the "next stage" as fast as possible.

Yes, I realize that sounds like a reckless, dangerous strategy: to speed up the falling rock. But when you realize that rock is feeding, clothing, and making people's lives easier along the way, it complicates the issue with conflicting needs. In the end, I believe poverty hurts people more so than a slightly warmer planet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zarathustra
Be True


Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 17417

Thanks: 37
Thanked 174 Times in 167 Posts


20418 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:


PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wayfriend, "nappy headed hos" is inflammatory speech. "Premature, anti-human biased, unscientific," is not.

Is there really much difference between me saying your speech is knee jerk, and you saying mine is inflammatory? Both have negative connotations. Both are criticisms. The only difference is that your criticism contains an implicit, "I've been victimized" charge. While mine does not--which appears to give you the moral high ground. You get to criticize me, and complain about my criticism all in the same breath.

I think that is predictably liberal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wayfriend
whilom witling

Male
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Posts: 18900

Thanks: 11
Thanked 219 Times in 202 Posts

Location: The world of the Bowling Green Massacre
43325 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
3 Member of Linden's Army


PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Malik23 wrote:
Wayfriend, "nappy headed hos" is inflammatory speech. "Premature, anti-human biased, unscientific," is not.


inflammatory: tending to arouse anger, hostility, passion, etc.: inflammatory speeches; Arousing passion or strong emotion, especially anger, belligerence, or desire; tending to cause anger, animosity, or indignation
-- dictionary.com.

"I think that is predictably liberal" is an inflammatory remark.
_________________
FEAR: Yet hearken well, aspirant bold!
I, tho' a stranger, but whilom friend,
Hold the odds against thee now.
Straightly be adjured, witling --


Last edited by wayfriend on Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Peven
Giantfriend


Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 333

Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Times in 1 Posts


0 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:


PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hypothetical: what IF it were proven that cell phones are the cause of the bees decline? are cell phones worth more than the existence of bees? like i said, hypothetical, but i think that is the baseline to start from when determining true priorities in this discussion.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
wayfriend
whilom witling

Male
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Posts: 18900

Thanks: 11
Thanked 219 Times in 202 Posts

Location: The world of the Bowling Green Massacre
43325 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
3 Member of Linden's Army


PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Experts may have found what's bugging the bees
A fungus that hit hives in Europe and Asia may be partly to blame for wiping out colonies across the U.S.

A fungus that caused widespread loss of bee colonies in Europe and Asia may be playing a crucial role in the mysterious phenomenon known as Colony Collapse Disorder that is wiping out bees across the United States, UC San Francisco researchers said Wednesday. [link]

So it may very well be a similar story to that of the frogs after all.
_________________
FEAR: Yet hearken well, aspirant bold!
I, tho' a stranger, but whilom friend,
Hold the odds against thee now.
Straightly be adjured, witling --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Prebe
Sure as shit not rolling on shabbat

Male
Joined: 08 Aug 2005
Posts: 7917

Thanks: 8
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

Location: People's Republic of Denmark
895 White Gold Dollars
Tokens
HP

User Items:
1 Trumpet


PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Malik wrote:
Yes, I realize that sounds like a reckless, dangerous strategy: to speed up the falling rock. But when you realize that rock is feeding, clothing, and making people's lives easier along the way, it complicates the issue with conflicting needs. In the end, I believe poverty hurts people more so than a slightly warmer planet.


First: Yes, it does sound like a reckless, dangerous strategy. I think the means of 'steering of growth' is what we disagree on. You will, if I understand you correctly, under no circumstances stand in the way of economic growth right? You would try to steer it, but if steering it means it looses momentum you'd let go right?

As opposed to YOUR prejudice, environmentalists are not against economic growth per se. We are for a steering of growth that takes the state of the planet into consideration. Of course every new technology/industry whatever must be weighed for pros and cons. Sometimes it's ok to kill off a portion of forest/some seals/whales if the benefit to humans is sustainable and long term.

All we have is the knowledge of what we need to survive now. Perhaps new avenues of strategies will emerge (adaptation) but environmentalists are not betting on that. Happy go lucky economists are.

Second: As to how free market and economic growth can regulate environment. If a technology kills off ALL or almost all of mankind, it will not prevail. True. But I'd rather that regulations were made before the free market 'adjusted' the population.

Plus, if a technology provides immediate growth, but kills off a significant proportion of humans in, say, 100 years, that technology could still prevail. How? If it's application still depends on the greed of those - potentially very few - in charge. And if itís application still depends on the lack of conscience/knowledge of the consuming segment. Furthermore, the continuation also depends on the decisive power of the population segment that is killed off, which, if we are talking third world country populations, is negligible.

Peven wrote:
isn't it accpetable to start out with a specific theory and then run experiments/observation to test that theory without having to come up with alternate theories along with it?
Not alternative theories, a complementary hypothesis. And no, scientifically you can't work without a complementary hypothesis, since the research itself is aimed at DISPROVING the complementary hypothesis.

It's like asking a question and setting up two answers: if it's not answer one, it must be answer two. This conslusion is ONLY correct if the two answers are:
A: Mutually exclusive
B: Covers all posibilities

So, to draw scientific conclusion you need such a set of hypothesis. That should, of course not, stop us from discussing questions to which we have no null-hypothesis. We just can't call it science.
_________________
"I would have gone to the thesaurus for a more erudite word."
-Hashi Lebwohl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Phoogle Map
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Kevin's Watch Forum Index -> Hile Troy's Think-Tank All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 3 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by Earthpower © Kevin's Watch