Gore's 'Truth' particularly inconvenient for those lovable creationists...

[Spider AL]

It's interesting, because I and some others have been talking about what exactly constitutes rational belief in a thread at the Cantina. This particular bit is the most relevant, however: religion says our senses are not enough to detect God through perception... but what is there, apart from that perception, to detect? I think the question is, do you trust products of your peception to tell you the "truth" about what you percieve, or do you yourself to determine that by experience (i.e., empirically)?

Well a rough but essentially correct way of defining rational opinions is: Those opinions which are based on a preponderance of objectively evaluated evidence.

 

And "evidence" can be tangible evidence, or logical reasoning, or any combination of the two.

 

We hold mathematical truths to be correct purely because of the evidence supplied by abstract logical reasoning. But on the other end of the spectrum we use tangible evidences alone to determine what our opinion should be on such subjects as... how to cook a palatable tomato soup, for instance. Colour, smell and flavour provide us with the evidence of success or failure in such endeavours.

 

But EVERY rational opinion must be based on objectively evaluated evidence, regardless of what form that evidence takes. And the ability to reasonably evaluate evidence is a skill which is simply not taught in classrooms in my nation, and probably isn't taught in the US either.

 

We still teach children by rote. They are expected to learn reams of asserted facts and to parrot those facts back on request. But how many teachers teach children how to learn? How many teachers teach children how to objectively assess the veracity of a given claim? How many teachers teach children to discard any and all assertions that are unsupported by evidence?

 

I've only ever met one or two such teachers myself. They are rare indeed, so it's about time people took responsibility for their own education in this matter, and became more objective and less invested in such nonsenses as traditional political parties and religions.

 

What I meant by that that is that religion doesn't think that science can show anything about God. What is science if not an attempt to explain in a predictable way what we percieve? So I think it's essentially the same thing.

Could you clarify this statement? The same as what? I'm sorry, I just don't understand what you are saying here.

[Samuel Dravis]

Well a rough but essentially correct way of defining rational opinions is: Those opinions which are based on a preponderance of objectively evaluated evidence.

 

And "evidence" can be tangible evidence, or logical reasoning, or any combination of the two.

Tangible evidence being evidence we percieve. The topic of the other thread had turned into the merits of solipsism, so you can go check it out if you feel like doing so.

 

Could you clarify this statement? The same as what? I'm sorry, I just don't understand what you are saying here.

Just that science is the rational study of our perception of reality. I argued that when you take skepticism too far, you eventually end up not "knowing" anything, and thus have to make probabilistic arguments on what the outside world is, in itself. Here's the relevant post of mine about that. Condensed, I stated that since doubting the very senses is totally useless in any manner I know of, I would accept them as the evidence of an outside reality. Thus, one who doubts the study of what we percieve (aka science) by imagining the existence of an unsupported entity would be relegating their statement into uselessness; to do that, they would have to assume that senses are not to be trusted and I don't see how that's useful.

 

As for what I meant by the same thing, I meant that science, by definition, IS what we percieve. It is composed of the models we have created to explain the experiences we have.

[Spider AL]

Tangible evidence being evidence we percieve. The topic of the other thread had turned into the merits of solipsism, so you can go check it out if you feel like doing so.

Looks like a nice thread, but I'm limited to the senate and the swamp, otherwise I'd most happily involve myself.

 

As for what I meant by the same thing, I meant that science, by definition, IS what we percieve.

Ah, now I understand what you meant. Well it rather depends what sense you're using the word "perceive" in.

 

"To perceive" can refer specifically to knowledge gained purely through the senses, or it can refer to any knowledge gained either through the senses or through the faculties of the mind.

 

And the latter sense would be accurate when applied to science. Because science is the study of reality, and reality in totality cannot be perceived purely through the physical senses. As stated elsewhere, logical reasoning must be applied for one individual to form any kind of workable picture of the world. One cannot physically confirm every basic accepted fact that goes to make up one's world-view. Logical reasoning fills the gulf, however.

 

So sure, one could say that science is the study of reality through the medium of perception, if "perception" is referring to the logical faculty as well as the physical senses.

[Samuel Dravis]

In that thread, I was using percieve to mean information gained through senses, and I indeed argued that it's not possible to know exactly what reality is. The logical model created through scientific reasoning may be more accurate in predicting phenomena we can detect, but it's not necessarily correct in an absolute sense. Still, I had argued that being able to predict phenomena we can detect is better than nothing, and is probably the most accurate representation of "truth" that can be found reliable.

 

Going from this, there is no reason to suppose there is a <hypothetical> because it has not demonstrated its existence in a way which has meaning to us. If there isn't such reason, then there's little to justify any position based on it - aka creationists, global warming detractors, etc.

[Spider AL]

In that thread, I was using percieve to mean information gained through senses

Ah, if you're using THAT sense, then I disagree with your statement that science "is what we perceive".

 

The information we can actually perceive through our physical senses is fairly limited when compared to the structures we can posit and impose onto the world via logical reasoning. Science is the organised study of reality, but that which we can perceive physically is quite a small part of the equation, as all data received by the senses must automatically be logically analysed before it's of any use anyway.

 

I indeed argued that it's not possible to know exactly what reality is

On the contrary, it may well be possible to arrive at ultimate truth. But of course, even if one did arrive at 100% accurate understanding of the physical universe, if one was being true to rationalism one could never be absolutely certain that one HAD arrived at ultimate truth. So I see where you're coming from.

 

Going from this, there is no reason to suppose there is a <hypothetical> because it has not demonstrated its existence in a way which has meaning to us. If there isn't such reason, then there's little to justify any position based on it - aka creationists, global warming detractors, etc.

The basic truth of religion is that it is a belief based on no good evidence. Quite literally NO good evidence. So if one regards the existence of a hypothetical deity as likely, one is being fundamentally irrational. Heck, if one operates in the world AS IF the existence of a hypothetical deity is even moderately possible, one is also being irrational.

 

Evidence is required. End of story.

 

So as you say, there is nothing to justify any position that is based upon a contention that a deity exists.

[Samuel Dravis]

Ah, if you're using THAT sense, then I disagree with your statement that science "is what we perceive".

 

The information we can actually perceive through our physical senses is fairly limited when compared to the structures we can posit and impose onto the world via logical reasoning. Science is the organised study of reality, but that which we can perceive physically is quite a small part of the equation, as all data received by the senses must automatically be logically analysed before it's of any use anyway.

Good point. I was thinking along the lines that for science to even work, it has to have something to explain - perception - which I suppose would make the statement half-true. It would really require both the evidence and the ability to link them to cause and effect. Thanks.

So I see where you're coming from.

Yep, that's exactly what I meant.

So as you say, there is nothing to justify any position that is based upon an <unsupported idea>.

Fixed, and true, as far as I can tell.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Jerry Falwell joins the "global warming is religion" crowd.

 

History will remember them as idiots, that's my only comfort.

[Spider AL]

Yep, if there's anyone left to do the remembering, that is.

 

'An Inconvenient Truth' scooped two Oscars at the weekend.

 

Promptly, a neo-con "think-tank" started a carefully timed smear-campaign against Mr. Gore, citing the power bills for his large mansion as proof that he is a hypocrite when it comes to conservation!

 

Of course, this was not only irrelevant, but was also ludicrous nonsense, and is debunked here and here. Gore is unusually environmentally conscious for a public figure, it emerges, and due to his energy-saving efforts, his "carbon footprint" is probably smaller than mine.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Promptly, a neo-con "think-tank" started a carefully timed smear-campaign against Mr. Gore, citing the power bills for his large mansion as proof that he is a hypocrite when it comes to conservation!

Of course they do. What else can they turn to, when they don't have arguments?

 

But yes, it's utterly and completely irrelevant as it has no impact whatsoever on the facts of global warming and An Inconvenient Truth.

[Nancy Allen``]

If Al Gore is so determined to be enviromental, something we should all aspire to though not to the lengths he wants us to, maybe he should explain this away.

 

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=257471698173513

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888&page=1

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Does John Edwards' date=' who lives in this enormous house in North Carolina, know what it is like to be "struggling to get by?"[/quote']Yes:

Edwards was born on June 10, 1953 to Wallace R. Edwards and Kathryn Juanita Wade in Seneca, South Carolina. The family moved several times during Edwards' childhood, eventually settling in Robbins, North Carolina, where his father worked in a textile mill and his mother was a postal employee. Edwards was the first person in his family to attend college.

 

And why on Earth should left-wingers have to be and stay poor themselves to help other poverty-stricken people? It's akin to me saying I can't help an elderly lady down a flight of stairs because I'm neither female nor elderly. Do I have to wait until I'm an old and fragile 75-year old to help other of the same age?

 

I can't for the life of me understand why it is that in order to help the less privileged, you have to be poor yourself. They never apply the same standards to other fields of aid - Red Cross aid workers don't have to lose a leg to an IED before they can talk about land mine victims, for example.

 

And if the carbon offsets are like "cleaning your travel", or whatever it translates to in English, it's a great system. "Travel-cleaning" consists of summing up what you spend on polluting travel and donate the same sum to those fighting global warming.

 

Not that it matters anyway. He could be driving his car to the mailbox and it wouldn't make his film any less true. Sure, it's senseless of him if he wastes power, but to use it to discredit An Inconvenient Truth just won't work.

 

Second' date=' the average American family is going to feel financial pain Gore won't if it were to buy the same offsets.[/quote']I fail to see the point here.

[Nancy Allen``]

The main point of the articles comes from a site where they discuss Al Gore having a $30000 utility bill. Which begs the question: he is allowed to use as much water gas and electricity as he likes? But others arn't?

[Achilles]

The main point of the articles comes from a site where they discuss Al Gore having a $30000 utility bill. Which begs the question: he is allowed to use as much water gas and electricity as he likes? But others arn't?

Sorry to butt in.

 

1) Although the headline (purposely?) misleads you to think that's his monthly electric bill, the article itself points out that it's actually his annual bill. Al Gore doesn't pay 30k per month for electricity and gas.

 

2) SourceWatch lists TCPR (the group that published the info on Gore) as a far-right think tank. Which clearly contrasts their own claim: "an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research and educational institute". Source

 

3) While the billing information might be part of the public record, it doesn't appear to be published online by an independent source (at least not by one that I was able to find). Therefore, TCPR could just be making the numbers up. The ABC News article says that the numbers are undisputed, but the wording in that part is suspect.

 

4) Speaking of suspect wording, this should give one pause: "The Center claims that Nashville Electric Services records show...". So did the journalists actually fact-check the information or are they relying on report published by the partisan "non-partisan" group? Hmmmm...

 

5) No one seems to dispute that the Gore's are off-setting their carbon footprint in other ways. It seems to me that he is practicing what he preaches. He's doing on a scale that probably makes most Americans extremely jealous, but so what?

 

6) Saving the best for last, none of this really matters anyways. The whole thing is an ad hominem attack and does nothing to distract from his message. Suppose private investigators find that he clubs baby seals in his basement and sneaks out into the wilderness to dance naked around mountains of burning tires. So what!? Doesn't change the validity (whatever you think it may be) of what the man says.

 

My 2 cents.

 

Added by edit: So much for non-partisan. Click me

[Nancy Allen``]

I'm not sure about the rest but I'll touch on this last part. You're right, this is used as an attempt to discredit Gore in his enviromental activism, something which it does a good job of as it shows him to be hypocritical. If he did commit the acts you described then not only would it further prove his hypocracy it would show that he should be locked up. But despite all that there is no denying the enviromental message Gore, conservative and enviromental groups such as PETA, Captain Planet and even the hard line groups such as Sierra and the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement are putting out.

 

That post, well there you go, the tactic against Gore backfired and shows that the people behind it could not give two damns about the enviroment, they just wanted an opportunity to try and bring down Gore.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

You're right, this is used as an attempt to discredit Gore in his environmental activism, something which it does a good job of as it shows him to be hypocritical.

You mean except from the fact that it's not true?

 

That post, well there you go, the tactic against Gore backfired and shows that the people behind it could not give two damns about the environment, they just wanted an opportunity to try and bring down Gore.

I think it's just as much that they want to bring down Gore's environmentalism. It's a hinder to their lucrative businesses, and puts them in a very bad light.

 

Of course, however, it's also a myth that to curb global warming, we'll have to effectively ruin our economy. Gore himself states in An Inconvenient Truth that changes in our daily routines alone (shorter showers, car-pooling, etc.) would have a significant effect.

[Nancy Allen``]

Isn't it true? Has it been proven false?

[Spider AL]

Ha! precisely, Eagle.

 

You're right, this is used as an attempt to discredit Gore in his enviromental activism, something which it does a good job of as it shows him to be hypocritical.

Nancy is clearly wrong, it does NOT do a good job, as it does NOT show Gore to be hypocritical. And since Gore's personal life is and always was an irrelevance to environmental issues, people should be scoffing at these smearing neo-conservative claims even BEFORE learning that they're untrue.

 

Sadly, I fear that most members of the US public are more likely to exhibit Nancy's knee-jerk stance on this matter than they are to sit down and think for themselves... though I wish and hope that they surprise me.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Isn't it true? Has it been proven false?

Yes. 'Al linked to two articles that debunked the claims.

[Nancy Allen``]

Attacking a woman who cannot defend herself is pretty easy isn't it? Too easy.

 

You say it doesn't do a good job of saying that Gore is hypocritical, then go on about Americans reacting to the news and saying that he is.

[Spider AL]

Attacking a woman who cannot defend herself is pretty easy isn't it? Too easy.

What ARE you talking about?

 

1. Are you referring to yourself? Are you stating that you've been "attacked"?

2. If so, by whom?

3. Are you attempting to state that because you have no valid counter-arguments and therefore cannot defend your position, you should be exempt from contradiction?

 

Odd, most odd.

 

You say it doesn't do a good job of saying that Gore is hypocritical, then go on about Americans reacting to the news and saying that he is.

I say it doesn't do a good job of showing Gore to be hypocritical, because it doesn't show that Gore is hypocritical. That's simple fact.

 

As for the reaction of Americans, I fear it's more likely to be like your reaction, that is, an uninformed reaction, a reaction that accepts neo-con propaganda as fact without bothering to check any facts.

[Nancy Allen``]

So by it being not effective it works on the poor dumb neo cons? Maybe you'd like to explain what you think neo cons are, your problem with them and why you continually use it as an insult.

[Spider AL]

So by it being not effective it works on the poor dumb neo cons?

Rather, that it is only effective on the gullible, people who don't bother to fact-check anything, and simply accept what the neo-con propaganda machine tells them without questioning it sufficiently.

 

Maybe you'd like to explain what you think neo cons are, your problem with them and why you continually use it as an insult.

Neo-con is short for neo-conservative, and neo-conservatism is a political and social ideology stemming from the works of amoral political theorist Leo Strauss. The rest, you can darn well go and look up for yourself.

 

As for what I and every other sensible person in the world detest about it as a "philosophy" (I use the term loosely) and a political ideology, it should be obvious after doing a little research. Frankly, you might as well ask "what's your problem with fascism????"

[Nancy Allen``]

That is a fallacy called generalisation, not everyone who disagrees with you is a neocon. Just because people are not screaming for America to leave Iraq and let them kill each other doesn't mean they are pro war. Just because people don't decry Bush as Hitler doesn't mean they support him.

[Spider AL]

That is a fallacy called generalisation' date=' not everyone who disagrees with you is a neocon.[/quote']THAT'S a fallacy called a straw-man. I have never stated that "everyone who disagrees with me is a neocon."

 

Go and find a quotation in which I say that. Go on.

 

In fact, go and find a quotation in which I say ANY of those stupid things you've just attributed to me. Pshaw.

[Nancy Allen``]

First prove to me how I'm a neocon. Prove that I'm a pro war, Bush supporting moron that you keep going on about.