4 ms·

> That's your deduction It's not. > I really feel humans think they change way more than they do. In 2025 this is either extremely uninformed or super dumb.

by palata 2y ago

> That's your deduction It's not. > I really feel humans think they change way more than they do. In 2025 this is either extremely uninformed or super dumb. Start reading, maybe.

jeffhuys 2y ago
I wish we could discuss this in a more professional manner. I might be informed by sources that contradict the sources you read. That doesn't mean I'm wrong, or you're wrong, but it would be nice to just discuss this as humans. I do understand that this is a sensitive subject to some, so I apologize for any distress I seem to have caused.
- palata 2y ago
  > That doesn't mean I'm wrong, or you're wrong There are things where the scientific consensus is so big that even if you "disagree" with it (whatever that means), you have to assume that you are wrong until you prove you aren't. Maybe gravity doesn't exist, maybe we live in the Matrix. But for all intents and purposes, gravity does exist. If you disagree, you're wrong unless you come with evidence that shakes the scientific consensus. I mean evidence, not a mere belief that maybe gravity doesn't exist because you've read it somewhere. If you don't believe that we humans are the cause of the biodiversity loss and climate change, today, you're wrong. And if you can't recognise that... well join a Flat Earther convention and have fun there, I don't have time for this here.
subjectsigma 2y ago
Ah, the classic “Anyone smart thinks exactly like I do, so you must be dumb.” I read his comment as an admission that nature is currently too wonderful and complicated for us to understand or control, not an assertion that global warming isn’t real or whatever you think he said. Humans created global warming and mass extinctions and it seems like the best way to stop it is to get more smart and dedicated humans, which aren’t rare but are uncommon. You better start hoping we pop out more people
- palata 2y ago
  > Ah, the classic “Anyone smart thinks exactly like I do, so you must be dumb.” Not at all, but that's the thing: it's very difficult to have a discussion with people who reason like you. Because you can believe something does not make it right. Saying "my sources are different" is just a way to justify your beliefs. "Well, I believe in some people, you believe in others, that makes us equal". That's how people like Trump get elected. He keeps saying everything and its contrary, and people just believe in him. Where all the facts suggest that he is a dangerous (yet charismatic) moron. The scientific way to approach it is this: "There is a large consensus about X. I don't know much about X, so I could believe Y and Z. I want to get informed, so I need to read and understand X (not Y and Z, not yet). Once I do understand X, I can start to question it by reading about Y and Z". You'll find that usually, after you have some reasonable understanding of this large consensus, Y and Z usually are at least less consistent, usually vague, generally believed by people who don't have much knowledge about X. I am not saying that you need to have 3 postdocs in X to give an opinion. But you have to make the difference between scientific consensus and beliefs. And if you want to change the scientific consensus, you have to be pretty damn well informed, you can't just repeat Y and Z because you read it on some social network. Now I get your next answer: I'm just a nobody on the Internet, why would you believe me instead of Trump? But again, I don't need you to trust me. I need you to do your due diligence and read about the scientific consensus before you feel entitled to say "my opinion is worth just as much as yours". And now you say: "and why do you think you're right?". I studied environmental chemistry, and I can tell you that the consensus is goddamn consistent, whereas the climate denier claims are systematically uninformed.
  - subjectsigma 2y ago
    Why are you bringing up Trump and climate denial when I've already said that I think climate change, extinctions, and other environmental damage is caused by humans and that we need to take action to fix it? Who are you arguing with?
    - palata 2y ago
      This thread is following: > I really feel humans think they change way more than they do. Which was a response to me saying that humans make the conditions worse for all species. It is literally denial of our responsibility in the climate change and current mass extinction. The author of that comment also said: "Let me be clear: the climate IS changing, I just doubt that it's mostly caused, or potentially solved by, human behavior", which is explicit denial. You came to defend that point by saying "Ah, the classic “Anyone smart thinks exactly like I do, so you must be dumb"". So my answer is explaining to you how I don't think this is the classic "anyone smart thinks exactly like I do so you must be dumb". Maybe you are not clear with the position you were defending?

by palata 2y ago

> That's your deduction It's not. > I really feel humans think they change way more than they do. In 2025 this is either extremely uninformed or super dumb. Start reading, maybe.

jeffhuys 2y ago

I wish we could discuss this in a more professional manner. I might be informed by sources that contradict the sources you read. That doesn't mean I'm wrong, or you're wrong, but it would be nice to just discuss this as humans. I do understand that this is a sensitive subject to some, so I apologize for any distress I seem to have caused.

palata 2y ago
> That doesn't mean I'm wrong, or you're wrong There are things where the scientific consensus is so big that even if you "disagree" with it (whatever that means), you have to assume that you are wrong until you prove you aren't. Maybe gravity doesn't exist, maybe we live in the Matrix. But for all intents and purposes, gravity does exist. If you disagree, you're wrong unless you come with evidence that shakes the scientific consensus. I mean evidence, not a mere belief that maybe gravity doesn't exist because you've read it somewhere. If you don't believe that we humans are the cause of the biodiversity loss and climate change, today, you're wrong. And if you can't recognise that... well join a Flat Earther convention and have fun there, I don't have time for this here.

subjectsigma 2y ago

Ah, the classic “Anyone smart thinks exactly like I do, so you must be dumb.” I read his comment as an admission that nature is currently too wonderful and complicated for us to understand or control, not an assertion that global warming isn’t real or whatever you think he said. Humans created global warming and mass extinctions and it seems like the best way to stop it is to get more smart and dedicated humans, which aren’t rare but are uncommon. You better start hoping we pop out more people

palata 2y ago
> Ah, the classic “Anyone smart thinks exactly like I do, so you must be dumb.” Not at all, but that's the thing: it's very difficult to have a discussion with people who reason like you. Because you can believe something does not make it right. Saying "my sources are different" is just a way to justify your beliefs. "Well, I believe in some people, you believe in others, that makes us equal". That's how people like Trump get elected. He keeps saying everything and its contrary, and people just believe in him. Where all the facts suggest that he is a dangerous (yet charismatic) moron. The scientific way to approach it is this: "There is a large consensus about X. I don't know much about X, so I could believe Y and Z. I want to get informed, so I need to read and understand X (not Y and Z, not yet). Once I do understand X, I can start to question it by reading about Y and Z". You'll find that usually, after you have some reasonable understanding of this large consensus, Y and Z usually are at least less consistent, usually vague, generally believed by people who don't have much knowledge about X. I am not saying that you need to have 3 postdocs in X to give an opinion. But you have to make the difference between scientific consensus and beliefs. And if you want to change the scientific consensus, you have to be pretty damn well informed, you can't just repeat Y and Z because you read it on some social network. Now I get your next answer: I'm just a nobody on the Internet, why would you believe me instead of Trump? But again, I don't need you to trust me. I need you to do your due diligence and read about the scientific consensus before you feel entitled to say "my opinion is worth just as much as yours". And now you say: "and why do you think you're right?". I studied environmental chemistry, and I can tell you that the consensus is goddamn consistent, whereas the climate denier claims are systematically uninformed.
- subjectsigma 2y ago
  Why are you bringing up Trump and climate denial when I've already said that I think climate change, extinctions, and other environmental damage is caused by humans and that we need to take action to fix it? Who are you arguing with?
  - palata 2y ago
    This thread is following: > I really feel humans think they change way more than they do. Which was a response to me saying that humans make the conditions worse for all species. It is literally denial of our responsibility in the climate change and current mass extinction. The author of that comment also said: "Let me be clear: the climate IS changing, I just doubt that it's mostly caused, or potentially solved by, human behavior", which is explicit denial. You came to defend that point by saying "Ah, the classic “Anyone smart thinks exactly like I do, so you must be dumb"". So my answer is explaining to you how I don't think this is the classic "anyone smart thinks exactly like I do so you must be dumb". Maybe you are not clear with the position you were defending?