4 ms·

> AI before the winter qualifies. No it doesn't. Modelling a natural systems (climate) on the one hand and technological progress (AI) on the other hand are 2

by dejb 18y ago

> AI before the winter qualifies. No it doesn't. Modelling a natural systems (climate) on the one hand and technological progress (AI) on the other hand are 2 enirely different areas. You wouldn't have found a predominance of scientific papers in respectable journals saying they had accurate models of the progress of AI development. > So does room-temperature fusion. You didn't read the post you replied to did you? I'll re- quote the relevent parts. >> This method is designed to ruthlessly root out falsehood. Look at cold fusion. I would imagine there would be no easier way to get funding than the promise of cheap, relatively low-tech, non-polluting, and abundant energy. Yet, Pons and Fleischman were immediately discredited and now stand as objects of ridicule to this day. You don't seem to understand the level of scientific agreement with regards to global warming. If it was as obvoiusly false and many deniers say then it would be - by far - the most significant failure of the scientific system in memory.

dejb 18y ago
Should have proof read this.
anamax 18y ago
> You didn't read the post you replied to did you? I'll re- quote the relevent parts. Actually I did. Room temperature fusion actually proves my point that trends exist. The fact that the room temperature fusion one ended doesn't change that fact. Funding is political. I'm not saying that it's wrong for it to be political, but denying that it is is a serious error and often leads to scientific ones. If you want to argue that funding isn't political, feel free to explain why certain diseases get lots of funding while others don't. (For example, guess why we know a lot about tobacco plant diseases. Does the relative funding for breast and prostate cancer make sense?) > You don't seem to understand the level of scientific agreement with regards to global warming. If it was as obvoiusly false and many deniers say then it would be - by far - the most significant failure of the scientific system in memory. Whenever someone says "scientific agreement" or "scientific concensus", I'm reminded of 5000 German scientists. When I hear "scientists" arguing that folks should be put in jail for disagreeing with them .... When I hear "scientists" say that they're not going to release data to folks "who want to prove them wrong".... I've no doubt that bogus arguments are being trotted out on both sides. However, one side wants to use force to change my behavior. It's somewhat interesting that their "recommendations" line up with a belief system that predates this round of falling sky and that they reject any solutions that don't line up with that belief system. They wrap themselves in "science" to stifle debate and to support conclusions that have no basis in their actual data. I'm not saying that those non-scientific behaviors prove that they're wrong, but .... > You don't seem to understand the level of scientific agreement with regards to global warming. Are you claiming actual relevant personal expertise? Or, are you going, as I am, by "monkey sign"?
- dejb 18y ago
  Cold fusion shows that the scientific process can quickly correct for errors before they become widely accepted. Even if those theories are ones that would lead to major increases in scientific funding. Maybe in your conspiracy-theory, wacky-science world 'room temperature fusion' was actually a widely accepted theory but in the actual scientific world it was nothing more than a theory proposed by a few people that was rapidly disproven. If that is the best comparable case you can find then you might as well give up. The fact that politics exists doesn't provide particular evidence that any widely held scientific view is incorrect. Your arguments could just as easily apply to evolution, quantum mechanics or ozone depletion > When I hear "scientists" arguing that folks should be put in jail for disagreeing with them What? Where? > When I hear "scientists" say that they're not going to release data to folks "who want to prove them wrong" Um what? > When I hear satan telling me to... OK I made that one up. Seriously though this is getting a bit far off the deep end.
  - anamax 18y ago
    > The fact that politics exists doesn't provide particular evidence that any widely held scientific view is incorrect. I never said that it did. You're the one claiming that a political process, namely funding, is a strong indicator of scientific truth. Or, are you still arguing that funding isn't political? >> When I hear "scientists" arguing that folks should be put in jail for disagreeing with them > What? Where? "In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature." http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623... > > When I hear "scientists" say that they're not going to release data to folks "who want to prove them wrong" > Um what? I'm still looking for that cite. (While looking for the incident that I was referring to, I found suggestions that Mann et al, the authors of the "Hockey Stick" paper haven't released their methodology, but that wasn't the one that I was looking for.)
    - dejb 18y ago
      > "In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature." This was a single instance of somebody speaking as a private citizen about people being tried (not specifically jailed) for their -->ACTIONS<-- assuming they knew exactly what they where doing. This is comparable to people now calling for the CEO's of cigarette companies to be convicted for knowingly surpressing evidence that smoking was harmful.

by dejb 18y ago

dejb 18y ago

Should have proof read this.

anamax 18y ago

> You didn't read the post you replied to did you? I'll re- quote the relevent parts. Actually I did. Room temperature fusion actually proves my point that trends exist. The fact that the room temperature fusion one ended doesn't change that fact. Funding is political. I'm not saying that it's wrong for it to be political, but denying that it is is a serious error and often leads to scientific ones. If you want to argue that funding isn't political, feel free to explain why certain diseases get lots of funding while others don't. (For example, guess why we know a lot about tobacco plant diseases. Does the relative funding for breast and prostate cancer make sense?) > You don't seem to understand the level of scientific agreement with regards to global warming. If it was as obvoiusly false and many deniers say then it would be - by far - the most significant failure of the scientific system in memory. Whenever someone says "scientific agreement" or "scientific concensus", I'm reminded of 5000 German scientists. When I hear "scientists" arguing that folks should be put in jail for disagreeing with them .... When I hear "scientists" say that they're not going to release data to folks "who want to prove them wrong".... I've no doubt that bogus arguments are being trotted out on both sides. However, one side wants to use force to change my behavior. It's somewhat interesting that their "recommendations" line up with a belief system that predates this round of falling sky and that they reject any solutions that don't line up with that belief system. They wrap themselves in "science" to stifle debate and to support conclusions that have no basis in their actual data. I'm not saying that those non-scientific behaviors prove that they're wrong, but .... > You don't seem to understand the level of scientific agreement with regards to global warming. Are you claiming actual relevant personal expertise? Or, are you going, as I am, by "monkey sign"?

dejb 18y ago
Cold fusion shows that the scientific process can quickly correct for errors before they become widely accepted. Even if those theories are ones that would lead to major increases in scientific funding. Maybe in your conspiracy-theory, wacky-science world 'room temperature fusion' was actually a widely accepted theory but in the actual scientific world it was nothing more than a theory proposed by a few people that was rapidly disproven. If that is the best comparable case you can find then you might as well give up. The fact that politics exists doesn't provide particular evidence that any widely held scientific view is incorrect. Your arguments could just as easily apply to evolution, quantum mechanics or ozone depletion > When I hear "scientists" arguing that folks should be put in jail for disagreeing with them What? Where? > When I hear "scientists" say that they're not going to release data to folks "who want to prove them wrong" Um what? > When I hear satan telling me to... OK I made that one up. Seriously though this is getting a bit far off the deep end.
- anamax 18y ago
  > The fact that politics exists doesn't provide particular evidence that any widely held scientific view is incorrect. I never said that it did. You're the one claiming that a political process, namely funding, is a strong indicator of scientific truth. Or, are you still arguing that funding isn't political? >> When I hear "scientists" arguing that folks should be put in jail for disagreeing with them > What? Where? "In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature." http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623... > > When I hear "scientists" say that they're not going to release data to folks "who want to prove them wrong" > Um what? I'm still looking for that cite. (While looking for the incident that I was referring to, I found suggestions that Mann et al, the authors of the "Hockey Stick" paper haven't released their methodology, but that wasn't the one that I was looking for.)
  - dejb 18y ago
    > "In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature." This was a single instance of somebody speaking as a private citizen about people being tried (not specifically jailed) for their -->ACTIONS<-- assuming they knew exactly what they where doing. This is comparable to people now calling for the CEO's of cigarette companies to be convicted for knowingly surpressing evidence that smoking was harmful.