3 ms·

Fine, so things are clarified: you were saying it could be a bubble because X, and now I've demonstrated that we are not in the situation X, so it is not a bubb

by cauch 3y ago

Fine, so things are clarified: you were saying it could be a bubble because X, and now I've demonstrated that we are not in the situation X, so it is not a bubble. I still don't understand how you can assume I'm not myself in a bubble, say that I see people considering renewables as a very valid solution, and still this observation is a result of a bubble (a bubble I'm not in, but still I only see things inside of the bubble and not out of it). Can you see my situation? You have to admit that my reaction is just legitimate. > If you can draw the above conclusions from this sentence, then there is no need to talk further. And I have to assume that you apply the same kind of logic to everything. No wonder you think Jancovici is wrong. How convenient. I think Jancovici is wrong about solar (not about everything) because I saw him saying things that are factually wrong, not because he said "bubble", "people" or "it" and that I have misinterpreted that. Firstly, even if I am somehow unable to understand your sentence (which I'm not), I don't need this skill to notice that the numbers we are obtaining are dramatically not the same as the numbers the guy provided. It's like saying "you don't understand Italian language, so I don't believe you when you say that this mathematical development has a sign error in it". Secondly, even if I'm myself an idiot, then you still need to explain why all of my colleagues (including the ones enthusiastic about nuclear development) are also very perplexed regarding Jancovici conclusions on solar. This whole discussion does not help my impression that there is a lot of irrationality and deny. It really feels you are jumping on an excuse to exclude the possibility that Jancovici may not be right. Again, it fits very well with my first interpretation that you jumped to conclusion that I may be myself in a bubble just because I was saying things that you don't want to hear.

palata 3y ago
> Fine, so things are clarified: you were saying it could be a bubble because X, and now I've demonstrated that we are not in the situation X, so it is not a bubble. No no no no no! Try to read it slowly. You wrote: "I'm working in the energy sector and I see that solar and wind are considered as a very valid solution." And I answered, quoting exactly the line above: "I would assume that people working in solar and wind believe in it... could it be a bubble?" I was NOT saying that you worked in solar and wind, and I was NOT saying that it was a bubble. I was saying that it would seem reasonable to me that people working in renewables would indeed see it as a very valid solution. And given that you work in the energy sector, I was merely asking whether it could be the case that the people around you consider solar and wind as a very valid solution just because they believe in it (e.g. because they work with solar and wind). Again I did not say "it has to be a bubble", I asked: "given your sector, could it be a bubble?". Then YOU proceeded in looking into other discussions and assuming things about me. Instead, you could just have said "well we don't work in solar and wind and don't benefit from it at all, so I don't see reasons for them to be biased" or "obviously I may be biased because we sell solar panels, but those are researchers and they really seem knowledgeable about it". Or anything you wanted. Basically you said "I work in the energy sector" as if it mattered (and it could, I don't know), and this was my way of asking you to elaborate. Instead you proceeded in attacking me. So here is my answer: from where I stand, you are not able to draw correct logical conclusions from what you read. Seriously, how can you jump from "could it be a bubble?" to "you jumped to the conclusion that I am in a bubble" (and I'm just mentioning one here)? That's insane.
- cauch 3y ago
  So you are saying I'm not in a bubble, BUT I'm in a bubble because, I quote, "people around you" "they work with solar and wind". How can I be outside of the bubble if the people around me are all in the bubble. If I'm outside of the bubble, I will see people who work in solar and wind AND people who work in nuclear. And according to you, people in nuclear will not act like people in solar and wind, so the overall observation would not be that I see that solar and wind is considered as a very valid solution, because I will see people saying it's not a valid solution. You even say: > given your sector, could it be a bubble? And you also say, I quote again > Of course people in renewables tend to say that nuclear doesn't work, and people in nuclear tend to say that renewables don't work. So, how does it work? How is that possible that, according to you now, you are not assuming that I'm working in solar and wind and not in nuclear, and at the same time, assuming that I cannot work in nuclear because, then, I will see people saying that solar and wind is not a very valid solution? As for what I've said next, it's the pot calling the kettle black: even right now, you need a tortuous gymnastic to twist your words so we may slightly imagine a version in which you did not assume anything about me. As for what I've imagined, the rest of the discussion just make me think I was 100% right. > how can you jump from "could it be a bubble?" to "you jumped to the conclusion that I am in a bubble" (and I'm just mentioning one here)? Anybody with basic training in basic logic can do that. 1) you say people working in wind and solar may be biased and think of it as a very valid solution 2) you say people working in nuclear may be biased and think of it as very not a valid solution 3) THE ONLY LOGIC POSSIBILITY FOR ME TO SAY I ONLY SEE IT BEING CONSIDERED AS A VERY VALID SOLUTION IS THAT I ONLY SEE PEOPLE WORKING IN WIND AND SOLAR. There is absolutely no other logical solution. (oh, and you would notice that I did not say "I see some people considering it as a very valid solution", which means I would also see others not considering it as a very valid solution. I'm saying it's a broad consensus to the point that this solution is very generally taken seriously. If you think I was saying "I see _some_ people", who is unable to read what the other has written?)
  - palata 3y ago
    Oh come on, it has to be a joke. You just don't understand anything, do you? I would ask if you are an LLM, but my experience with LLMs is that they understand natural languages better. > So you are saying I'm not in a bubble, BUT I'm in a bubble because Last time: I asked if what you described (i.e. a large consensus for an idea) could be a bubble. I A-S-K-E-D. That's what the question mark means (this is a question mark: "?"). >> how can you jump from "could it be a bubble?" to "you jumped to the conclusion that I am in a bubble" > Anybody with basic training in basic logic can do that. You and I seem to have a very different view of what the word "logic" means.

by cauch 3y ago

palata 3y ago

> Fine, so things are clarified: you were saying it could be a bubble because X, and now I've demonstrated that we are not in the situation X, so it is not a bubble. No no no no no! Try to read it slowly. You wrote: "I'm working in the energy sector and I see that solar and wind are considered as a very valid solution." And I answered, quoting exactly the line above: "I would assume that people working in solar and wind believe in it... could it be a bubble?" I was NOT saying that you worked in solar and wind, and I was NOT saying that it was a bubble. I was saying that it would seem reasonable to me that people working in renewables would indeed see it as a very valid solution. And given that you work in the energy sector, I was merely asking whether it could be the case that the people around you consider solar and wind as a very valid solution just because they believe in it (e.g. because they work with solar and wind). Again I did not say "it has to be a bubble", I asked: "given your sector, could it be a bubble?". Then YOU proceeded in looking into other discussions and assuming things about me. Instead, you could just have said "well we don't work in solar and wind and don't benefit from it at all, so I don't see reasons for them to be biased" or "obviously I may be biased because we sell solar panels, but those are researchers and they really seem knowledgeable about it". Or anything you wanted. Basically you said "I work in the energy sector" as if it mattered (and it could, I don't know), and this was my way of asking you to elaborate. Instead you proceeded in attacking me. So here is my answer: from where I stand, you are not able to draw correct logical conclusions from what you read. Seriously, how can you jump from "could it be a bubble?" to "you jumped to the conclusion that I am in a bubble" (and I'm just mentioning one here)? That's insane.

cauch 3y ago
So you are saying I'm not in a bubble, BUT I'm in a bubble because, I quote, "people around you" "they work with solar and wind". How can I be outside of the bubble if the people around me are all in the bubble. If I'm outside of the bubble, I will see people who work in solar and wind AND people who work in nuclear. And according to you, people in nuclear will not act like people in solar and wind, so the overall observation would not be that I see that solar and wind is considered as a very valid solution, because I will see people saying it's not a valid solution. You even say: > given your sector, could it be a bubble? And you also say, I quote again > Of course people in renewables tend to say that nuclear doesn't work, and people in nuclear tend to say that renewables don't work. So, how does it work? How is that possible that, according to you now, you are not assuming that I'm working in solar and wind and not in nuclear, and at the same time, assuming that I cannot work in nuclear because, then, I will see people saying that solar and wind is not a very valid solution? As for what I've said next, it's the pot calling the kettle black: even right now, you need a tortuous gymnastic to twist your words so we may slightly imagine a version in which you did not assume anything about me. As for what I've imagined, the rest of the discussion just make me think I was 100% right. > how can you jump from "could it be a bubble?" to "you jumped to the conclusion that I am in a bubble" (and I'm just mentioning one here)? Anybody with basic training in basic logic can do that. 1) you say people working in wind and solar may be biased and think of it as a very valid solution 2) you say people working in nuclear may be biased and think of it as very not a valid solution 3) THE ONLY LOGIC POSSIBILITY FOR ME TO SAY I ONLY SEE IT BEING CONSIDERED AS A VERY VALID SOLUTION IS THAT I ONLY SEE PEOPLE WORKING IN WIND AND SOLAR. There is absolutely no other logical solution. (oh, and you would notice that I did not say "I see some people considering it as a very valid solution", which means I would also see others not considering it as a very valid solution. I'm saying it's a broad consensus to the point that this solution is very generally taken seriously. If you think I was saying "I see _some_ people", who is unable to read what the other has written?)
- palata 3y ago
  Oh come on, it has to be a joke. You just don't understand anything, do you? I would ask if you are an LLM, but my experience with LLMs is that they understand natural languages better. > So you are saying I'm not in a bubble, BUT I'm in a bubble because Last time: I asked if what you described (i.e. a large consensus for an idea) could be a bubble. I A-S-K-E-D. That's what the question mark means (this is a question mark: "?"). >> how can you jump from "could it be a bubble?" to "you jumped to the conclusion that I am in a bubble" > Anybody with basic training in basic logic can do that. You and I seem to have a very different view of what the word "logic" means.