Trolls win: Rude blog comments dim the allure of science online

The trolls are winning. Pick a story about some aspect of science, any story, scroll down to the blog comments and let the bashing begin.

  • "Wonder how much taxpayer cash went into this 'deep' study?"
  • "I think you can take all these studies by pointy headed scientists, 99 percent of whom are socialists and communists, and stick them where the sun don't shine."
  • "Yawn. Climate change myth wackos at it again."
  • "This article is 100 percent propaganda crapola."
  • "Speaking of dolts, if you were around in the 70s, when they also had scientists, the big talk then was about the coming ice age. And don't give me any of that carbon emission bull@!$%#."

Such nasty back and forth, like it or not, is now a staple of our news diet, and in the realm of online news, the diatribes, screeds and rants are taking a toll on the of science and technology, according to a study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

UW-Madison science communication researcher Dominique Brossard reported the results of a study showing the tone of blog comments alone can influence the perception of risk posed by nanotechnology, the science of manipulating materials at the smallest scales.

The study, now in press at the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, was supported by the National Science Foundation. It sampled a representative cross section of 2,338 Americans in an online experiment, where the civility of blog comments was manipulated. For example, introducing name calling into commentary tacked onto an otherwise balanced newspaper blog post, the study showed, could elicit either lower or higher perceptions of risk, depending on one's predisposition to the science of nanotechnology.

"It seems we don't really have a clear social norm about what is expected online," says Brossard, a UW-Madison professor of Life , contrasting online forums with public meetings where prescribed decorum helps keep discussion civil. "In the case of blog postings, it's the Wild West."

For rapidly developing nanotechnology, a technology already built into more than 1,300 consumer products, exposure to uncivil online comments is one of several variables that can directly influence the perception of risk associated with it.

"When people encounter an unfamiliar issue like nanotechnology, they often rely on an existing value such as religiosity or deference to science to form a judgment," explains Ashley Anderson, a postdoctoral fellow in the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University and the lead author of the upcoming study in the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication.

Highly religious readers, the study revealed, were more likely to see nanotechnology as risky when exposed to rude comments compared to less religious readers, Brossard notes.

"Blogs have been a part of the new media landscape for quite some time now, but our study is the first to look at the potential effects blog comments have on public perceptions of science," says Brossard.

While the tone of blog comments can have an impact, simple disagreement in posts can also sway perception: "Overt disagreement adds another layer. It influences the conversation," she explains.

UW-Madison Life Sciences Communication Professor Dietram Scheufele, another of the study's co-authors, notes that the Web is a primary destination for people looking for detailed information and discussion on aspects of science and technology. Because of that trend, "studies of online media are becoming increasingly important, but understanding the online information environment is particularly important for issues of science and technology."


Explore further

Online science news needs careful study, researchers say

Citation: Trolls win: Rude blog comments dim the allure of science online (2013, February 14) retrieved 20 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2013-02-trolls-rude-blog-comments-dim.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 14, 2013
*Chuckles* I notice how all of the comments used as an example would be most likely found from right wing commenters. I hope the UW study was a little less biased!

Feb 14, 2013
Ya sure came to the right place. This one should be big fun.

Feb 14, 2013
*Chuckles* I notice how all of the comments used as an example would be most likely found from right wing commenters. I hope the UW study was a little less biased!

That's one way of looking at it; however, I think this line from the article captures the essence of what lies behind such comments:
When people encounter an unfamiliar issue like nanotechnology, they often rely on an existing value such as religiosity or deference to science to form a judgment,


Feb 14, 2013
UW-Madison? Uh-huh.

Even the professors think Madison is left of Lenin.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/

Feb 14, 2013
Wiy, I hope that line in the article is correct and actually unbiased. If it is, then there are things that can be done about resolving people's predispositions toward topics in science. However, if that's the researchers' bias speaking, I don't think there's much value to be gained from the study. Hopefully, it was nothing more than one of phys.org's awesome writers trying to sound witty. Not uncommon, unfortunately!

Feb 14, 2013
I would have liked to have seen some follow up on whether the perceptions on science could be repaired, either by showing that the authors of the diatribes are wrong or by attacking them back. I see both aspects on this board and I wonder which is more effective. Or if something different works better.

I like to believe the worst of the idiotic theories are seen to be the junk science they are, but I wonder. The scary ones are those which are presented reasonably well, such that those readers that don't spend some effort to confirm or refute them are taken in. I would give some examples, but I imagine this thread will get polluted enough as it is.

Trying to fight back against the garbage out there is hard and often without reward, but like djr said somewhere, someone has to at least try.

Feb 14, 2013
Wonder how much taxpayer cash went into this 'deep' study?
Why we have so much of "duh" science? The contemporary scientists definitely need way more of public feedback. I'd even accept the public expenses for apparently useless if not silly research, which will get forgotten fast - if the scientists involved wouldn't ignore the really important findings like the cold fusion from the same reason. The scientists are the same selfish meme or social lobby like the politicians, lawyers and bankers: useful at small doses, harmful at larger ones. What's worse, they're payed mostly from mandatory fees, so that the public control of scientists should be twice-times as thorough there. The rest of society shouldn't follow their rules and interests non-critically.

Feb 14, 2013
Yes it is true ValeriaT that some public feedback is good, and that scientists should not ignore important findings, yet in the same sentence you make a pitch for a technology that has shown no promise to work!

And you are wrong in saying that they are paid from "mandatory fees" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean! There are many different means by which they are paid, from universities, to government, to private sector, to special interests, and on and on. Many of them don't get paid at all, or are paid a pittance.

To suggest that scientists should be controlled by anyone is ludicrous, and to suggest that such control should be exercised by some nebulous entity called "the public" is beyond belief!

Feb 14, 2013
Rude blog comments dim the allure of science online
I'd rather say, they're reflecting it. If some politician gets the rude comments on his blog, then it's just a manifestation of public agreement with his behavior. What's worse, the opinions which don't attack the particular people reflect the disagreement with situation the more, because they're separated from individual animosities.

Why the scientists believe, that the "rude opinion" don't reflect the actual attitude of public toward science but some bias from their idealized situation? Such a stance indicates, they're getting separated from reality in similar way, like the hypocritical politicians. I can feel an unspoken tendency for application of censorship of uncomfortable opinions beneath such a stance.

Feb 14, 2013
yet in the same sentence you make a pitch for a technology that has shown no promise to work!
The only problem is, 1) it wasn't demonstrated in peer-reviewed official journals, despite 2) just the mainstream physicists are loudest in dismissal of cold fusion finding. Such a paradox is very suspicious - why just the mainstream physicists are so convinced about their stance, when just their stance has so weak support in their own sources?

Actually even by now, after twenty years we still have no official replication of nickel fusion experiments! We have dozens of official negative experimental confirmations of many effects, which would supposedly violate the mainstream theories, like the general relativity and quantum mechanics - but no one of mainstream physicist is willing to publish the negative results of nickel fusion in Nature or Science journals. Apparently the studying and publishing of certain negative results is way more important than the publishing of other ones..

Feb 14, 2013
We should say quite clearly and loudly, that the absence of official replication of some phenomena isn't the official evidence of absence of this phenomena - but an official evidence of the pathological skepticism about it.

If the scientists are really so sure, that the cold fusion doesn't work, they should find a courage in accepting of personal responsibility for such stance. So far we are just facing coward quiet ignorance of anonymous crowd of mainstream physicists. Which is one of reasons, why these people are losing their credit and social status in the eyes of the rest of society.

It's as simple as it is. I'm indeed willing to accept, that the whole cold fusion is an experimental error or artifact - but I want to READ ABOUT IT in rigorous peer-reviewed official journal. If nothing else, than just for practical importance of this subject.

Feb 14, 2013
Because I'm not so stupid and misinformed as many PO readers here, I of course DO REALIZE, that the ignorant stance of mainstream physicists regarding cold fusion is just a replication of the ancient case of Galileo opponents, who simply refused to look through his telescope for not to face the logics of experimental evidence. Even the personal motivation of these hypocritical people remained the very same: the financial one. The opponents of Galileo were engaged in research of alternative astronomical models, which were source of their income (you know, all these horoscopes and void scholastic books full of formal geometrical crap, similar to contemporary theories of mainstream physics). These people just found the way, how to cheat the rest of society in safe reliable way - so they didn't want to lose their source of income and social credit.

The history just repeats again by now - after all, as it repeated many times after Galileo.

Feb 14, 2013
Actually the difficulty of contemporary science-the physics in particular - makes the scientists even more conservative, than the astronomers at the time of Galileo. When you spend whole half of your productive life with learning of some theory and another portion with its laborious extending - then you of course will not willingly accept any indicia, that the whole your existing life was based on just a misunderstanding. These psychosocial problems are getting the worse, the more money and time the individual scientists are spending with learning and justification of existing models of reality.

And please, don't believe, that the layman society is less religious and less misinformed about it, than the people in medieval times. Due the information explosion the contemporary laymans are forced to accept way more facts without actual understanding, than the average people of Galileo era. The counterintuitive character of contemporary science just forces them in their religious attitude

Feb 14, 2013
For example, when I point to the fact, that the spreading of energy in vacuum shares a number of similarities with spreading of waves at the water surface, then the only response is downvoting and furious dismissal - despite I do provide many tangible examples and experiments published in mainstream press (Couder and others).

For me such a negativist - if not hateful - attitude toward all indicia, which could threat the established paradigm is not quite normal and it points to deeply religious approach, in which the results of mainstream science are adopted with layman publics. This religious attitude is even more apparent between young naive people, who never met with alternative opinion in their life, only with official scientific propaganda. It's sorta generation inversion: the old people are less conservative, than the young ones! Actually because of counterintuitive character of mainstream science these people have no other option, than to accept all these facts religiously.

Feb 14, 2013
"Blogs have been a part of the new media landscape for quite some time now, but our study is the first to look at the potential effects blog comments have on public perceptions of science,"

I'd argue that only a tiny percentage pf people who go to comment sections want to argue/debate. Most just want to state an opinion. So I'd see very little influence on public perception due to comments. What influence can there be if people already have a fixed opinion before even posting?

Case in point: Religion is a fixed opinion (you believe - and that's that). How can someone like that be expected to be able to honestly argue/debate science?

Even the professors think Madison is left of Lenin.

So? What's wrong with that? And more to the point: What has it got to do with the issue portrayed in the article?

The contemporary scientists definitely need way more of public feedback.

Science isn't a democracy. You don't vote on whether something is true or not.

Feb 14, 2013
I may comment on an article in Phys.org, but I rarely put much weight on others comments. There are a few ID's that I'll ckeck out.
Still, I read Phys.org and other sites for their informational input, not for viewers comments.

Feb 14, 2013
Evidence speaks for themselves. The explanation of this is simple.

Who, with a real job, has the time to sit and write comments all day long? And who has the time to read all the crap that is written by crackpots?
ValeriaT is a notorious troll, only on this article he has posted 7 long comments - all with negative content towards real scientists.
Shear volume in comments does the trick.

Surely, he must be paid by someone write this - I wonder by whom?
Maybe the taxpayers?

Feb 14, 2013
Actually the problem is other sites are heavily censored. Write something that is less than complementary about Israel or banksters and your post isn't even published on reuters and you are banned on Gawker. Of course it's no secret that the oligarchs control the US government. They even staged a coup in 1933 employing Butler to raid DC with 500,000 troops. So banksters and industrialists edit textbooks and newspapers and openly launch smear campaigns to target opposition in any one of their promotes stereotype pigeon-holes like "socialist", "ecoterrorist", "seditionist", "conspiracy theorist" etc. It's laughable because conspiracy is the very fabric that weaves DC together

Bullshit and perception management are at the core of any managed economy. The haves are desperate to have more and view the masses as an erosive force, forever demanding liberty over tyrrany

Feb 14, 2013
Science isn't a democracy. You don't vote on whether something is true or not.
It apparently doesn't work for proponents of mainstream science at most forums, who just use the downvoting for "arguing" of uncomfortable opinion nearly exclusively.

Actually the contemporary science is nothing less, nothing more than just about intersubjective opinion, which just uses the public voting (i.e. impact rank) for its establishing.

So sorry, I'm forced to refuse your opinion on everyday observational basis supported with my personal experience. You're trying to describe some hypothetical idealized (ideal?) state - not the real situation with contemporary science. Of course the science is sorta democracy - of scientists involved. In ideal state it should be a meritocracy, independent of the carriers of opinion.

Feb 14, 2013
ValeriaT is a notorious troll, only on this article he has posted 7 long comments - all with negative content towards real scientists.
Towards contemporary scientists you say. This is indeed a difference. The people, who are refusing the cold fusion at nickel, ZPE engines, the room temperature superconductivity or antigravity experiments without even bothering to try it yourself aren't REAL scientists in my eyes. The layman public is gradually realizing the ignorant attitude of mainstream physics too - most of progress in 21st century is done outside of official mainstream physics labs. Now I'm talking about actual progress, which is able to change the everyday life - not about abstract theories and useless findings.

Feb 14, 2013
It apparently doesn't work for proponents of mainstream science at most forums, who just use the downvoting for "arguing" of uncomfortable opinion nearly exclusively.

Science needs no one to promote anything ('mainstream' or not). The notion that there is even something like 'mainstream' science is only in your mind and the minds of those who don't even know what the word science means (look it up).

Science is about doing stuff no one has ever done before (otherwise it's just engineering). How can you have 'mainstream' with something that is always new?

And if you think that voting on a comment section has anything to do with how the ARTICLE is viewed then you must be out of your tiny little mind.

So sorry, I'm forced to refuse your opinion on everyday

And you would not believe the amount of [insert expletive of choice] I do not give on whether you agree with me or not.

Feb 14, 2013
In ideal state it should be a meritocracy

And if you had ever worked in science (which you never have) you would know that science IS a meritocracy. Those that do good science are respected. And that EXACTLY to the point in time when they publish their next work - which is the time at which the respect of the community has to be earned anew from scratch.
on everyday observational basis supported with my personal experience.

You cannot claim an observational basis or personal experience since you've never 'been and done' in science. You only can claim an "I heard on FOX news..."-basis. But that is neither scientific nor much of a basis for anything.

Feb 14, 2013
The situation with labeling of contemporary science is complicated with the fact, not all areas of science are in the equally bad shape. Many areas of science, which don't depend on massively inertial theories are quite progressive even by now. Actually it's mostly the physics, the theoretical one in particular with suffers with conceptual problems (other than overemployment). And believe it or not, some scientists are even useful for tax payers.

Feb 14, 2013
The notion that there is even something like 'mainstream' science is only in your mind and the minds of those who don't even know what the word science means
This is just another idealist stance of yours. You're really living in alternate reality - in ivory tower common for many mainstream scientists. Or do you really believe that the people like the Nicola Tesla, Podkletnov, Konstantin Meyl, Fleischman and Pons, Piantelli and Rossi or our J.F.Prins or Oliver K. Manuel weren't real scientists engaged in official research? But the fact, their results were never attempted to replicate serves as an evidence, they don't belong into scientific mainstream anymore. It's actually quite easy to distinguish them: no replication in mainstream press = no mainstream science. The fact, that the hypocritical mainstream gradually adopts carefully choose portions of alternative research and it even later promotes it in context of mainstream ideology cannot change this fact.

Feb 14, 2013
Or do you really believe that the people like the Nicola Tesla, Podkletnov, Konstantin Meyl, Fleischman and Pons, Piantelli and Rossi or our J.F.Prins or Oliver K. Manuel weren't real scientists engaged in official research?

Sure. But Tesla was snubbed in engineering (not in science). VHS beat BetaMax. It happens.

Fleischman and Pons published something that they couldn't reproduce (similarly Piantelli and Podkletnov. Rossi isn't in the field of science at all - he's in engineering/sales...if that).

Oliver K Manual an J F Prins are just cranks. I'm sure they believe in their ideas, but they don't mesh with experiment/observation.

Guess what: there are many people who either think they are scientists or say they are scientists - but aren't. Likewise not everything a scientists does is automatically right (and/or revolutionary)

(And people like Podkletnov, Manuel and Pons/Fleischman DID get printed in (what only you call) 'mainstream' scientific journals, BTW)

Feb 14, 2013
I'd see very little influence on public perception due to comments
Jeez - just these comments are representing the public perception of science, nothing else..;-) The perception of science with publicity cannot be represented with authors of blogs, who are himself scientists by profession and/or with authors of university news or editors of science journals, who are PAYED for popularization of science.

Actually the only relevant source of public opinion about science is just what remains - the anonymous comments bellow uncensored blogs. We should value this rare unbiased feedback.

Feb 14, 2013
Fleischman and Pons published something that they couldn't reproduce
Yes, in dozens of publications about it. The same about research Piantelli and Focardi. So, we have dozens of articles of scientists, who just "cannot reproduce their own results" - and zero number of publications in mainstream press from another sources. This is pretty definition of what alternative science actually means today.

Feb 14, 2013
There is no authority controlling who gets to pick up on previous work
Of course, I never talked about some organized conspiracy in this connection. The physicists just don't want to lose their job places in existing research of alternative methods on energy production/conversion/transport and storage, so they all ignore the cold fusion intentionally as a single man - despite it could help many other people. But because we have no public system, how to prefer effective research into account of this useless one, everything is perfectly legal and moral.
the ball is in your court now - replicate the research - and make yourself famous
I'm not getting the money, buildings and equipment from tax payers for my research - the scientists who are supposed to contribute into progress of human civilization are getting all of it. So if I would invest my private money into cold fusion research, I would do it on private basis like Andrea Rossi.

Feb 14, 2013
You apparently didn't understand the whole core of problem - the scientists payed from public resources should research the ways, which should help the publics - not the safe life of scientists itself. The doctors in public hospitals are there for to serve the publics, not the carriers of doctors or prosperity of their clinics. If they don't want to do it, they should be fired with no mercy. In private sector they can research what they want and nobody will ask them, if it's useful or not. Sorry, the moral responsibility for twenty years standing ignorance of cold fusion research is fully on the side of mainstream scientists, who got the equipment and money for it, so they could do it without problem - but they didn't.

And now these scientists are saying, it's just the anonymous feedback bellow blogs, which decreases their social credit? Oho...;-)

Feb 14, 2013
@DavidW The truth doesn't go away and as such, is omnipotent and everlasting from our perception.
Sorry Dave but you have no better grip on the truth than anyone. All we have in life are FACTS. If you understood relativity then you would know that properties exist outside of objects in spacetime, not inside. The "truth" and causality are different depending upon your inertial frame of reference and scale. For example, a kilogram weighs 1% less at the equator. So even a scientific standard depends exactly upon where it is

Feb 14, 2013
I of course DO REALIZE, that the ignorant stance of mainstream physicists regarding cold fusion is just a replication of the ancient case of Galileo opponents, who simply refused to look through his telescope for not to face the logics of experimental evidence.


Zeph, Galileo Galilei didn't have a problem with his fellow scientists, it was the Church who suppressed his science.

The history just repeats again by now - after all, as it repeated many times after Galileo.


The so-called "mainstream" scientists tried, many times to replicate the fraudulent cold fusion experiments, they couldn't do it.

And please everyone,, please stop using Galileo as example of the "mainstream" scientists suppressing the truth. His battle was with the Church. As far as science goes, he was about as "mainstream" as ya could get back in those days.

Feb 14, 2013
Science isn't a democracy. You don't vote on whether something is true or not.
This is just a demagogy, as the democracy doesn't vote whether something is true or not anyway. The democracy just anonymously votes its representatives. This vote decides, whether their opinions will be presented at public or not. The science uses anonymous peer review, which decides, whether opinion of some scientist will be published or not. It's not about truth at all - but just about free access to public presentation of ideas and results in mainstream press.

Feb 14, 2013
So if I would invest my private money into cold fusion research, I would do it on private basis like Andrea Rossi. So do it.
I'm not solving the particular problem here (the ignorance of cold fusion), but a reason of this problem (the ignorance of another findings). I want learn the people about reasons of ignorance, which slows down the progress of human society and I think, I can be more useful right here.
The so-called "mainstream" scientists tried, many times to replicate the fraudulent cold fusion experiments, they couldn't do it
Sorry, I don't believe them, until they publish something about it in mainstream journal. During last twenty years no publication about cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel was presented in mainstream journal, so I can just conclude, that the physicists fucked this verification completely, or they found positive results and they decided to remain silent about it for not to threat the jobs of another physicists in existing research.

Feb 14, 2013
The critique is more about how the 'science' is reported by the media, and by the authors who obfuscate their uncertainties.
Most science papers are hyped, as is done here, claiming this or that is just around the corner, or that no/yes/no...Neanderthals and modern humans mated.
And AGW is in a league of its own of hype since the IPCC is a political organization and the proposed solutions are political.
The fault lies in the science industry who are not rewarded for acknowledging how much they still have to learn.

Feb 14, 2013
please stop using Galileo as example of the "mainstream" scientists suppressing the truth. His battle was with the Church
Whereas Pope Urban VIII encouraged Galileo to publish his "The Dialogue" instead..;-) It would be too kind interpretation for contemporary scientists - but no, the most stubborn opponents of Galileo were just another astronomers, who were engaged in epicycle models and who did afraid of unwanted competition. They just used the Church as a moral authority, i.e. in similar way, in which the "scientific method" is referenced by now. But as we can see, this scientific method (or rather misinterpretation of it) has lead into ignorance of important scientific findings for many years.

Feb 14, 2013
From my experience at this site, trolls who assert they are defending science are the ones giving themselves and science a bad name.
The 'progressives' have usurped science as well and can't tolerate any dissension in the ranks.
The 'science' is settled after all and once settled, no one is allowed to question the conclusions, according most of the 'trolls' here.

Feb 14, 2013
Imagine the good that you would accomplish by discovering cold fusion. You would be the savior of the world
LOL, the discovering of cold fusion is the least problem here - after all, it has been discovered before twenty years already...;-) The actual problem apparently is to convince the people in taking this finding responsibly. The people are really able to destroy itself with global nuclear war for the rest of fossil sources, while sitting on the ocean of free energy. It would be a typically human attitude.

Feb 14, 2013
..most science papers are hyped" What percentage of science papers do you read -
The reality is, most science papers are paywalled and the accessible information for laymen is hyped.
And you posess the knowledge - and refuse to reveal the secrets - you evil bastard.
These papers contain all information necessary for replication of cold fusion at nickel with COP > 3. Until I will not see any attempt for their replication in peer-reviewed physical journal, the ball is on court of mainstream scientists.

Feb 14, 2013
Frankly, I don't know where the mainstream scientists are getting their conviction, that the cold fusion cannot work, when nearly all published experimental informations about it are positive and the experimental work of skeptics is still apparently missing in peer-reviewed journals (from the very same reasons).

Richard Feynman: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong".

Well, and the theory of mainstream ignorants is, that cold fusion cannot work - that's all. Just their experiments are missing.

Feb 15, 2013
If there was any truth to cold fusion why the hell would someone suppress it? Instead of IDK becoming filthy rich & buying a couple sports teams, a Nobel pride, supermodel wife, etc, etc.

Your whole premise makes no sense to any rational person.

BSD
Feb 15, 2013
UW-Madison? Uh-huh. Even the professors think Madison is left of Lenin.

And your the biggest rightwing wanker who loves rightwing, gay cowboy actors. Your hardly one to be making valid comments on anything. You fuckwit.

Feb 15, 2013
Why is it that apparently all the proponents of cold fusion are lacking the scientific skills and/or funding to prove that it works?

Why don't YOU all pool your talents and resources and attempt to replicate the experiments that you claim were successfull? There is a gazzilion dollars to be made if you are right. Even if it is being hushed up by some conspiracy of energy moguls, think of all the bribe money you will get to keep quiet!

Feb 15, 2013
I am very disappointed at the rudeness, vulgarity, shallowness, and pettiness of many of the comments on physorg. They are not only ugly but they often dominate discussion threads and destroy the scientific value of the comments section. I have sometimes been drawn in to some spitting contests myself.

Feb 15, 2013
Would scientists not ignoring Martini and Rossi's E-cat have made it less of a Fraud?

"if the scientists involved wouldn't ignore the really important findings like the cold fusion" - - ValeriaT

Feb 15, 2013
Maybe because u 'scientists' are the biggest bunch of arrogant bastards on the planet. Just sayin'.

Feb 15, 2013
RyggTard's objection is, of course, the result of pure fantasy and pure ignorance, since the IPCC does not, and has never, proposed mitigation strategies.

"the IPCC is a political organization and the proposed solutions are political." - RyggTard

The IPCC has one and only one purpose, and that is to provide a meta analysis of all available scientific data, and scientific opinion on Global Warming, and to use that information to produce probable scenario's of future warming based on models of future emissions.

It is common practice by Conservative Idiots like RyggTard to criticize organizations like the IPCC for the results of work that are not actually performed, but that they imagine are preformed and imagine contradict the tenants of their Conservative Political ideology.


Feb 15, 2013
Yes, szore is correct. Scientists have doubled his life span compared to his ancestors, and provided him with a means of instant communication with any point on the earth 's surface.

Science has provided him with the very forum in which he now debases scientists.

"Maybe because u 'scientists' are the biggest bunch of arrogant bastards on the planet." - szore

Feb 15, 2013
Two years ago you couldn't stop talking about E-Cat.

Now that it is accepted to be nothing but a the fraud you were told it was, you ignore it and continue to yammer nonsense about the others that you continue to believe are not frauds.

"nearly all published experimental informations about it are positive" - ValeriaT

how much more fraud will it take to convince you?

Feb 15, 2013
I claim that you can cure cancer by rubbing dog crap on your tongue twice a day.

Feel free to spend your science budget researching the efficacy of that treatment.

You should try it. RyggTard swears by it.

"the scientists payed from public resources should research the ways, which should help the publics" - ValeriaT


Feb 15, 2013
Because if the Illuminati and the Space Aliens found out about it, the person doing the development would be turned to a pile of green goo by a "plasmonic conversion" ray gun blast.

So Cold fusion researchers keep their research secret to throw the New World Order off their tracks.

"If there was any truth to cold fusion why the hell would someone suppress it?" - DayDaddy

Martini and Rossi are an exception of course. they are simply engaged in age old Italian fraud.

Feb 15, 2013
How would you know?

"Most science papers are hyped" - RyggTard

You have never read one.

BSD
Feb 15, 2013
Maybe because u 'scientists' are the biggest bunch of arrogant bastards on the planet. Just sayin'.

And maybe religion is the biggest load of bullshit ever perpetrated on mankind by paedophiles and terrorists. And those who believe it are simple minded, hokey fuckwits. Just sayin.

Feb 15, 2013
phys.org is a microcosm, demonstrating the conclusions of this article in practice.

Feb 15, 2013
The truth doesn't go away and as such, is omnipotent and everlasting from our perception.

But absolute truth no place in science (and BTW: 'absolute truth' doesn't mean anything It's about as meaningful a statement as a 'round circle' - and for the very same reason. It's a contradicion in terms when you look at it closely).

In science it's always "true AS FAR AS WE KNOW RIGHT NOW". There is no absolute. So if you come here with some notion that absolutes exist then you're on the wrong site.

Feb 15, 2013
Maybe because u 'scientists' are the biggest bunch of arrogant bastards on the planet.

I think you misunderstand the word arrogance. Arrogance happens when you think you can do/claim/be something WITHOUT willingness to show that you can do that thing/show your claim to be true/prove that you are indeed worthy of being seen as such a great person.

Science is diametrically opposed to that. Science lives in a perpetual state of 'Show and Tell'. There is no room for arrogance.

What you mistake for arrogance is a lack of willingness to cut people who don't want to put in the effort to understand science some slack. That is not arrogance. That is just telling people that they should get off their bums and stop expecting everything to be spoon fed to them if they want to make a meaningful contribution. It is a gentle reminder that effort has to be expended on BOTH sides of a debate.

Feb 15, 2013
Science lives in a perpetual state of 'Show and Tell'. There is no room for arrogance.

That is not what I have observed.
Scientists like Ehrlich and other advocate activism to force the world to change to what they assert is the best way to live.
Eugenic scientists were quite eager to engineer humanity to perfect it to their ideal.
How can a process, earning a PhD, that requires a student to submit to arrogant professors, not become arrogant in the process?
Scientists who assert any science is settled are NOT arrogant?

In science it's always "true AS FAR AS WE KNOW RIGHT NOW".

Why is that disclaimer seldom stated or asserted by scientists?

Feb 15, 2013
If there was any truth to cold fusion why the hell would someone suppress it?

Anybody involved in the cdrrent energy systems, ie fossil fuels would not want to lose their business. Anybody involved in research of hot fusion would not want to lose their funding. Yes, hot fusion people were asked to replicate cold fusion experiments. Surprise: They annoynced it being false even before they finished their experiments.

Feb 15, 2013
If there was any truth to cold fusion why the hell would someone suppress it?

Anybody involved in the current energy systems, ie fossil fuels would not want to lose their business. Anybody involved in the research of hot fusion would not want to lose their funding. Yes, hot fusion people were asked to replicate cold fusion experiments. Surprise: They reported it being false even before they finished their experiments. We have to remember that failure to replicate something does not mean that the original test is false, if there are uncontrolled variables. Those uncontrolled variables were evident from the fact that sometimes cold fusion experiments worked and sometimes not. This oftehn happens in experimental discoveries. Then after theory is upto date, we learn to handle all the variables and things get engineered status. With cold fusion/LENR there is no accepted theory, yet.

Feb 15, 2013
That is not what I have observed.

Since you have never been in the scientific community you have observed nothing.

How can a process, earning a PhD, that requires a student to submit to arrogant professors, not become arrogant in the process?

Because the professors aren't arrogant? Your work is judged by 4-6 professors (and besides your PhD adviser and the head of the department YOU invite the other professors from relvant fields to judge your work. So if YOU invite people who you suspect will be 'arrogant' then that's your own fault.

(No, that doesn't lead to nepotism, because those who judge put THEIR reputations on the line to judge you fairly. Ifit later turns out your work was sloppy or copied off of someone then THEY are in trouble, also. So they have a lot of incentive for taking a very close look at your work)

Why is that disclaimer seldom stated or asserted by scientists?

Because it's so basic. Anyone who doesn't know it knows nothing of science.

Feb 15, 2013
Headlines like this don't help the cause of science or science reporting:
"Expert psychologist suggests the era of genius scientists is over"
This is on the physorg.com

I would also suggest that science sites may write their stories in a manner that creates ambiguity motivating comments which brings traffic and revenue to the site. And there would be little incentive to moderate any comments as traffic creates revenue.

Because it is a premise of science that is learned very early in your education (some time during your high school years hopefully) - so it does not need to be stated to educated people.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

'Liberals' can't tolerate educated people.
In any science paper or research, assumptions must be stated explicitly.
If the uncertainty is already assumed, why have so many scientists asserted the 'science is settled', meaning there is NO uncertainty.

Feb 15, 2013
Rygg, you are doing the sae thing as you often, if not always, do; you assert some nebulous ill intent to a scientist who publishes a paper because you read an article about it written by someone wo is paid to find a way to attract your attention by using graphic, exciting words. Why can you not see that that is not science? You have even gone so far a to state the obviosness of my comment when you said this:
I would also suggest that science sites may write their stories in a manner that creates ambiguity motivating comments which brings traffic and revenue to the site.

Feb 15, 2013
In any science paper or research, assumptions must be stated explicitly.

Not the very basic ones. You don't need to state in scientific papers that 2 plus 2 equals 4. It is expeceted of those who read scientific papers to have a minimum of education. If you don't then that is not the scientists' fault but your own for being lazy.

I would also suggest that science sites may write their stories in a manner that creates ambiguity motivating comments which brings traffic and revenue to the site.

And if you had been less lazy when coming here (and head read the FAQ or similar) you would have noticed that this is a science AGGREGATION site. Only very few pieces here are authored by phys.org staff. Go ahead: Take any sentence out of an article here and google it. You'll find the VERBATIM source (and it's also mostly linked at the bottom of the article. too)

'Liberals' can't tolerate educated people.

Liberals have, on average, higher education than conservatives.

Feb 15, 2013
Life is the most important thing in life.

Tautology. Hence this statement carries no information whatsoever. That's philosphy 101, mate. You'll have to do better than that.
How is that not true

And how does it matter/mean anything? Does the universe care that we're alive (more specific: that we CALL ourselves 'alive')? 'Alive' or not are just labels - not some fundamental difference. There is no force, no interaction that is qualitatively different in a stone or a fly or a human being. The same forces are at work.

Now that absolute truth has been stated and established

No. Aboslute truth has been claimed to exist by you without so much as a shred of an argument. Saying "I wanna have absolute truth exist" and stomping your foot doesn't make it so.


(E=MC^2)Observed by Life
(E=MC^2)Accepting that Living is True

Woha. You sir, are the epitome of crazy if you think that makes any snese whatsoever to anyone but you.

Feb 15, 2013
@DavidW The truth doesn't go away and as such, is omnipotent and everlasting from our perception.
Sorry Dave but you have no better grip on the truth than anyone. All we have in life are FACTS. If you understood relativity then you would know that properties exist outside of objects in spacetime, not inside. The "truth" and causality are different depending upon your inertial frame of reference and scale. For example, a kilogram weighs 1% less at the equator. So even a scientific standard depends exactly upon where it is
@DavidW I specifically stated some truths that don't change, ever.
No, you didn't. You're impossibly vague to to point where your words mean everything, and by consequence mean nothing. You talk about "truth" as your sacred cow. All religionists have some sacred touchstone which is absolutely beyond question. That's where you hide all your miracles and magic. Yours is simply a nebulous "truth" not existing in spacetime

Feb 15, 2013
Unfortunately, you don't know the truth about "ValeriaT"
LOL, how the "truth" about me is relevant to what I'm saying? Ignorants will always fabricate some reason, why to ignore uncomfortable stance. If they cannot argue the truth, they will argue its authors.

Feb 15, 2013
We are truth. We are life. We are important, per the truth.

That doesn't mean anything. You're not using language to convey information here but wax (vaguely) poetic. This is a science site, which means: reason and fact.
If you can't do that (and it seems very obvious that you can't) then this may not be the place for you.
Touchy-feely-gobbeldygook is something you can try over at bible.com or similar. There you may find simpletons who think it means something.

How about sigma * infinity with any of the above?

Holy banana - do you even know what sigma means? Please. Don't use words you know nothing about. It's painful watching someone make so much of a fool of themselves. In german we have a word ('fremdschämen') -it has no perfect translation in english- but it means "to cringe inwardly with shame when imagining one would say/do something that the person you're observing has just done"

And when I read your confused posts you definitely set new standards in that area

Feb 15, 2013
If I were to say to you that we are important to the welfare of others when we help others, you would agree.

I would agree. But the flaw in your logic is so basic that it's really painful to watch you not pick up on it:

You say: life defines itself as important to life

I say: I'm rich because I call myself rich

See how that doesn't mean anything?
Those are circular definitions (tautologies. look the word up) - utterly worthless as arguments.

We remain important no matter what we do to others.

Exactly. We are important RELATIVE to others. RELATIVE is the operative word, here - not ABSOLUTE. Without the others you aren't important to them so your 'truth' isn't absolut. It is contingent on others. And that is what is a RELATIVE value.

in calmer frame of mind

The interent isn't important enough to raise my blood pressure by one point - never fear.

That you are crazy was not an insult - it was a calmly rational conclusion arrived at via analysis of your posts.

Feb 15, 2013
Get yourself on a vegan lifestyle

As opposed to vegans I have studied human biology (I hold a PhD in human biology) - so I know for a FACT that a vegan lifestyle is not what our body is adapted to. Living that lifestyle is another of your "I wanna stuff to be so"-symptoms. But wanting something to be doesn't make it so. Stop fantasising and start living in the real world - especially if you want to talk science.

"there is no truth" in science causes to innocent life

Science is a tool. If you want to talk morality go someplace else. The universe has no morality values. Science doesn't cause the problems to 'innocent' life (what does that phrase even mean? How is it different from just 'life'?). PEOPLE with crazy ethics (read: religious, dumb, callous and/or absolutist people) cause damage to others.

Feb 15, 2013
Antialias,
"Science is a tool."
Agree, so are all forms of knowledge, including religion, philosophy, mathematics, logic, intuition, memory, and so forth. Kurt Gödel was Einstein's friend and provided a fine proof that all knowledge is incomplete in and of itself. Knowledge is just a useful probabilistic fiction, a model based upon some form of experience, such as "school of hard knocks", incorrectly formalized science or correctly formalized science with life as an observer. Science without observer is false as it sets no bounds, no basis, and no limits on the statistical data base. Enjoy much of your writings, except when you've tried to take the intellect too far beyond her limits, the experiential data base, including "School of hard knocks" we all grow up with. Surprisingly science is often not better, just much more expensive and thus often not done, or done badly, with bias.

Feb 15, 2013
From my experience at this site, trolls who assert they are defending science are the ones giving themselves and science a bad name
So sorry ryggy if science has discovered that biblical events like the flood, the exodus, and the genocidal joshuan rampage never happened; and that people like adam and eve, noah, moses, jesus the water-walker and jehovah himself (and his loving wife asherah) never existed as described.

But this only gives religionists who continue to insist that the bible is factual, despite overwhelming EVIDENCE to the contrary, a bad name.

And most people here will continue to remind you and all religionists who show up here, about these unfortunate Truths.

Because it is only right and proper to respect Science which is based on evidence, and to reject ALL superstitions which of necessity are based on the REJECTION of evidence.

Feb 15, 2013
The mainsteam science doesn't agree with your findings...


I thought mainstream science was not to be trusted. That all they did was pervert the truth, deny the truth, and hide the truth.

How do ya know when they are lying? As opposed to telling the truth? (Do they code their papers with some secret seal that only the elect can interpret?)

Feb 16, 2013
#DavidW kochevnik,Are we alive? Just checking. Quit trolling me. This isn't a game.
Game theorists might disagree with you on that point

In regard to the article, I would be worried if the dialectic trolls, deniers and genetically ungifted did NOT rise in opposition to reason and facts. Idiots form the ground we stand upon. We all need the antithesis to forge the synthesis fired in the crucible of vouching and validation

Feb 16, 2013
Yep, there is real question, who is trolling more - the people, who are vowing mainstream science at their blogs noncritically - or the people, who are opposing them in diaspora. From our contemporary perspective the opponents of Galileo persecuted and trolled him loudly - but in his time the same situation was perceived in quite opposite way. It's all just about definition of mainstream opinion.

Feb 16, 2013
Note that during information singularity a topological inversion of causual space will occur and the mainstream opinion will suddenly become the opinion of minority and vice-versa. In similar way are forming the galaxies from dark matter and back again in steady-state universe model. The rigid remnants of former mainstream opinion isolated against rational arguments from outside represent the black holes in this analogy.

The principle of AWT is such a topological inversion of understanding of reality - to convince the people, that the space isn't void and empty, but a superfluid transparent system of another very dense matter. It's like the teaching the fishes, that their environment isn't empty, but another dense matter. A similar topological inversion happened, when the people realized, that the Sun doesn't revolve the Earth, but vice-versa.

Feb 16, 2013
The mechanism of informational singularity is always very same: the growing evidence and indicia against existing paradigm of reality understanding pile up and when their critical concentration increases some limit, then the majority of people will switch toward new paradigm. These formerly neglected indicia will become the rigid basis of the new paradigm and the evolution will continue with collecting of another indicia..

Feb 16, 2013
Scientists, look in the mirror first:

" scientists are often a-holes to each other. Well-known examples include Edward Teller's famous machinations against J. Robert Oppenheimer, or Thomas Edison's proprietary manipulations against Nikola Tesla. There is also a plethora of workaday a-hole moves such as: denying funding to one's competitors, disparaging them or their results, getting them fired, delaying publication of their work—all simply for vanity, supposed superiority, or envy dressed up as rightness."
"science won't be the amazing force for good it is unless scientists in the thousands cooperatively labor in humility before the demands of reason."
http://www.the-sc...ientist/

Feb 16, 2013
" scientists are often a-holes to each other. Well-known examples include Edward Teller's famous machinations against J. Robert Oppenheimer, or Thomas Edison's proprietary manipulations against Nikola Tesla. There is also a plethora of workaday a-hole moves such as: denying funding to one's competitors, disparaging them or their results, getting them fired, delaying publication of their work—all simply for vanity, supposed superiority, or envy dressed up as rightness."
"science won't be the amazing force for good it is unless scientists in the thousands cooperatively labor in humility before the demands of reason."


And that makes scientists, what? Human, perhaps? What human endevour doesn't have it's share of such shenanigans? Politicians? Religionists? Leprechauns? Name one "group" where everyone of those traits can't be found prominently.


Feb 16, 2013
And that makes scientists, what? Human, perhaps? What human endevour doesn't have it's share of such shenanigans? Politicians? Religionists? Leprechauns? Name one "group" where everyone of those traits can't be found prominently.


But non-scientists are 'trolls'?
This article indicts non-scientists implying scientists are noble and only trying to save the world. If only those mean 'trolls' would leave them alone.

Feb 16, 2013
But non-scientists are 'trolls'?


Some are, some are not, a troll is in the person, not in the position in life one holds.

This article indicts non-scientists implying scientists are noble and only trying to save the world. If only those mean 'trolls' would leave them alone.


No, this article indicts non-scientists who comment on what is good science and bad science based on emotion and politics rather than with an understanding of the science.


Feb 16, 2013
Edison wasn't a scientist.

"Thomas Edison's proprietary manipulations against Nikola Tesla" - RyggTard

He wasn't even a particularly good inventor. He paid others to do that for him.

He was however, a thug, who did things like pay criminals to enter theaters and demolish film projectors owned by people who wouldn't pay his "Edison tax" for using "his" invention.


Feb 16, 2013
You fit the pattern don't you, Tard Boy?

"But non-scientists are 'trolls'?" - RyggTard

The article is about you and your slovenly kind.

Feb 16, 2013
And though what feat of non-logic do you conclude that Tardie Boy?

"Headlines like this don't help the cause of science or science reporting: "Expert psychologist suggests the era of genius scientists is over"" - RyggTard

You might try reading the article rather than just skimming the headline and presuming that it says things that you wish it to say.


Feb 16, 2013
No, this article indicts non-scientists who comment on what is good science and bad science based on emotion and politics rather than with an understanding of the science.


Political and emotional 'scientists' like Paul Ehrlich get a pass?

Feb 16, 2013
Correlation is causation?
"According to the U.S. Census Bureau, having parents who are married decreases a child's probability of living in a poor household by more than 80 percent … that's better than any government program, "
"The Brookings Institution has concluded that if the U.S. had the marriage rates today that it had in 1970, there would be a 25 percent drop in poverty. In 1970, almost 80 percent of all American adults were married, compared to 52 percent now."
http://foxnewsins...america/

Now if any university scientists dared to verify this observation, the 'liberal' trolls would shut them down and the researchers would likely be suspended.
Science today has nothing has nothing to do with facts. Instead, science must support the 'progressive' agenda. This was documented decades ago by Hayek and many others.

Feb 16, 2013
"All too many of my contemporaries in science have accepted without question the hype that suggests that an advanced degree in some area of natural science confers the ability to pontificate wisely on any and all subjects."
"Though physicists might once have been dismissive of metaphysics as mere speculation, they would also have characterized such questions as inherently speculative and so beyond their own realm of expertise. The claims of Hawking and Mlodinow, and many other writers, thus represent a striking departure from the traditional view."
http://www.thenew...cientism
Scientists and their popular press need to stick with science, IF they are worried about controversy.

Feb 16, 2013
If I were to say to you that we are important to the welfare of others when we help others, you would agree. If I said that we are important to the welfare of others when we harm others, you would also agree. We remain important no matter what we do to others.
Your bullshit is harmful to me but in a very unimportant way. Whatever is causing you to spout it here is harmful to you in obviously important ways.

Ascetics can, and have, and will, starve themselves to death thinking that they are pursuing nirvana. Their poetry had become more important to them than the Truth, that eating will keep them from dying.

I find poetry distinctly unpalatable.
belly pleasure
Yeah, poetry like that. Ugh.
You keep your mouth shut and put 100 people in room and show them the real thing. Make sure you have great sound too. We can observe the natural reaction.
I recommend 100 aborigines. Or people who raise food animals. Anyone who would exhibit a truly natural reaction.

Feb 16, 2013
gang members in the middle of the night in cities all over the place in audience discussions regarding the truth and life where smiles were across the faces of all involved, over 30 years ago.
Gang members are perhaps more acutely aware of the moral dynamics of tribalism; altruism and sympathy toward members in conjunction with animosity and aggression toward outsiders. This is exactly WHY certain people are attracted to gangs.

Violence and predation of outsiders has ALWAYS been considered moral at a biological level. Had you been able to shed your poetic preconceptions and observe these people in their natural environment, you would have SEEN this.
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf

Feb 16, 2013
Moral, honest men and women always get a pass.

"Political and emotional 'scientists' like Paul Ehrlich get a pass?" - RyggTard

It is also why you never get one.

Feb 16, 2013
Violence and predation of outsiders has ALWAYS been considered moral at a biological level.
If yes, why not to make a meal from mainstream scientists, after then? They don't want to cooperate with their critics anyway. After all, it's a question, if they really can cooperate without loosing complete support of their own community. During recent years I observed, that they simply cannot research any controversial issues - from cold fusion over aether model and scalar waves to antigravity effects. Did you realize, that even if such a finding has been made accidentally, it was never attempted to replicate in mainstream press? Such a finding always just served as a taboo for all mainstream scientists from this moment.

Feb 16, 2013
Yes, it was halarius watching Libertarian Economists trying to claim that the Earth couldn't be warming because there was no such thing as Temperature.

They had me laughing at them for years.

"All too many of my contemporaries in science have accepted without question the hype that suggests that an advanced degree in some area of natural science confers the ability to pontificate wisely on any and all subjects." - RyggTard

Feb 16, 2013
When Libertarains and Randites open their mouths, stupid things come out.

"Science today has nothing has nothing to do with facts" - RyggTard

It is sad that RyggTard still hasn't told us how many dollars of love he has for his wife and children.

Feb 16, 2013
"science must support the 'progressive' agenda. This was documented decades ago by Hayek and many others." - RyggTard

Hayek was of course an economist, who's theories have now largely been proven to be false.

Hayek and too many of his contemporaries in economics have accepted without question the hype that suggests that an advanced degree in some economics confers the ability to pontificate wisely on any and all subjects.

Snicker.

Feb 16, 2013
Here RyggTard shows that he can not distinguish between physical causation and thoughts (statistics, correlation).

"Correlation is causation?" - RyggTard

He lives in a Randite fantasy land where ideas, can be interchanged with physical objects or their properties.

Such is the nature of his Randite mental disease.

Feb 16, 2013
Moral, honest men and women always get a pass.
Which is why jesus was nailed to a post I guess. The penultimate tribalist.

Feb 16, 2013
Let me rephrase for Otto.

Honest, moral men and women such as myself, always give other moral, honest men and women a pass.

And that is why RyggTard never get's one.

Feb 16, 2013
Let me rephrase for Otto.

Honest, moral men and women such as myself, always give other moral, honest men and women a pass.
-except when they happen to belong to an opposing tribe.
And that is why RyggTard never get's one.
-because he is from the tribe down the valley, and his people have been hunting your game and stealing your women. Same old story.

Im afraid youre going to have to kill him and eat him. Before he does the same to you.

Feb 16, 2013
The claims of Hawking and Mlodinow, and many other writers, thus represent a striking departure from the traditional view
The Nature journal explains why science is, like religion, based on faith. The dogmatization of mainstream science physics in particular is long term process, which already started at the end of the last century with development of various concepts like string theory, holographic model or multiverse, which are difficult to prove by their very definition, and which aren't so different from naturalistic philosophy or even religion by their falsifiability.

Feb 16, 2013
Interesting that the kind of comments to be seen are also aimed at those who promote the unconventional.
In fact, if you look, you will notice that, on forums like PhysOrg, the most foul mouthed, mean minded, contemptuous comments are by defenders of the "science" promoted "official story" than by those who promote unconventional ideas. "Science" devotees have the far, far higher incidence and proportion of comments that involve "tin foil hat", "whacko", "lunatic", "asylum" and vulgarity. But that's not what's important here. This article isn't about vicious comments stifling effecgive discussion. The interest here is only how they will affect "science" convincing those who can't and don't think for themselves.
"It's alright if I do it to you, it's wrong if you do it to me!"
But, then, if "science" is supposedly being impeded by the relative dearth of rude comments, but the unconventional is going strong, maybe it's the faults and lies in "science" that hurt it.

Feb 16, 2013
@ValeriaT The Nature journal http://www.nature...-1.11244 why science is, like religion, based on faith.
I didn't read that in the link. It merely suggests that some things are not yet scientifically understood. Check back in a million years

Feb 16, 2013
Remember folks, Anti, Q, and the others, don't believe in truth,,,,
We have a child dying preventably every 5 seconds and these guys want to debate instead of accepting the truth, leaving them to die. It really is that bad.


Considering the amount of time ya spent posting, as it seems to be more than "Anti, Q and other" together by a factor of 10 on this thread,,,, I'd say that those 5 year old's death is on your hands,,, ya should have been out saving him instead of playing word games with us.

Ya have saved no one today. And your efforts in futility have allowed an additional 20 or 30 5 year old's deaths.

Feb 16, 2013
Otto has this one backwards.

"because he is from the tribe down the valley, and his people have been hunting your game and stealing your women." - Otto

Conservatives are more likely to eat my women and hump my game.


Feb 16, 2013
In fact, if you look, you will notice that, on forums like PhysOrg, the most foul mouthed, mean minded, contemptuous comments are by
-you, right?
Of the 126 books indexed, you only read 120?
Six are in German and/or French.
Oh wait. The translations.
I'm sorry I don't understand what you are blathering about. Did you read the paper? It is a very good one. It explains a lot but in very uncomfortable ways. Nicht wahr?
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia?
Well I'm not even going to look that up. Ever see that German word that is a whole paragraph long? Good thing the English invented punctuation.
The Germans overcame this.
Über alles. They sing songs about it.

Feb 16, 2013
Conservatives are more likely to eat my women and hump my game.
-And this is just the sort of religionist myth engendered by tribalism. I'm sure you have just as many goat-humpers where you come from VD.
We have a child dying preventably every 5 seconds and these guys want to debate instead of accepting the truth, leaving them to die. It really is that bad.
U don't know, you been to the supermarket lately? Meats pretty cheap nowadays. So are hunting licenses.

Feb 16, 2013
@DavidW Remember folks, Anti, Q, and the others, don't believe in truth.
They strike me as not being interested in writing about nothing. You could learn from them

Feb 16, 2013
Hi a_p. Haven't much time, so briefly on your observation...
Case in point: Religion is a fixed opinion (you believe - and that's that). How can someone like that be expected to be able to honestly argue/debate science?
Yes, exactly. There are many instances in the history of science where 'religious' belief in their own 'infallibility' led otherwise intelligent scientists to ridicule/refuse to look at evidence for themselves' even if its placed right under their noses practically 'on a silver platter'. An example I remember is the Barry Marshall and Robin Warren affair regarding their Helicobacter Pylori causing stomach ulcers. The 'establishment' REFUSED to even CURSORILY check EVIDENCE PRESENTED at a MEDICOs conference. Another example I recall is that Japanese?/Korean? guy who had evidence that BLUE LEDs were technically feasible; but had to withstand 'official' ridicule to do it all ON HIS OWN!

Yeah, a_p, let's beware 'elite science gone religionist' by all means! :)

Feb 16, 2013
Max Planck, the father of quantum mechanics said we have no right to assume any physical laws exist and if they do, to expect to be the same in the future.
This must unsettle those who believe in a mechanistic, deterministic universe. In such a deterministic universe, humans have no free will and therefore bear no responsibility for their actions. A corollary is then those who work hard and create wealth are not responsible and the deterministic libertines feel justified in using state power to plunder that wealth.
A deterministic universe is an essential belief for the 'progressive'.
And because it is a belief system, or a religion, they respond quite irrationally and with much vulgarity to defend their faith.

Feb 16, 2013
@ryggie A deterministic universe is an essential belief for the 'progressive'.
Yet another Randian lie from the resident libtard. Unlike Ayn Rand who was a thinker and an atheist who vouched for rational thought in all pursuits, ryggie is forced to make things up to support his hollow "arguments"

Feb 16, 2013
@ryggie A deterministic universe is an essential belief for the 'progressive'.
Yet another Randian lie from the resident libtard. Unlike Ayn Rand who was a thinker and an atheist who vouched for rational thought in all pursuits, ryggie is forced to make things up to support his hollow "arguments"

"Eugenics was an attempt to use science (the newly discovered Mendelian laws of heredity) to solve social problems (crime, alcoholism, prostitution, rebelliousness), using trained experts. Eugenics gained much support from progressive reform thinkers, who sought to plan social development using expert knowledge in both the social and natural sciences. In eugenics, progressive reformers saw the opportunity to attack social problems efficiently by treating the cause (bad heredity) rather than the effect."
http://www.ncbi.n.../2698847

Feb 16, 2013
cont:
"Eugenics was only one aspect of progressive reform, but as a scientific claim to explain the cause of social problems, it was a particularly powerful weapon in the arsenal of class conflict at the time."
http://www.ncbi.n.../2698847

"Genetic components of political preference"
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Brown University is not known as a bastion of anti-socialism.

Feb 16, 2013
And yet physorg does not moderate the comments on here. Maybe thats why the trolls are winning.

Feb 16, 2013
@ryggie A deterministic universe is an essential belief for the 'progressive'.
Yet another Randian lie from the resident libtard. Unlike Ayn Rand who was a thinker and an atheist who vouched for rational thought in all pursuits, ryggie is forced to make things up to support his hollow "arguments"
-kochevnik

Koch...once again, your attempt at abusive ad hominem toward ryggesogn2 does you a disservice. Whether you do it knowingly or not or just wish to be 'one of the boys' and less of a foreigner who has somehow become caught up or entangled in American politics and economic issues, I assure you that rygg2 is about as far away as anyone can be from being a 'libtard'. VD obviously doesn't give a damn that you continue to make a fool of yourself by using the American term 'libtard' on an American Conservative, so I will perhaps be the first to inform you that 'libtard' does not mean what you believe it to mean, (contd)

Feb 16, 2013
(contd)
The term 'libtard' has nothing to do with Libertarians. It actually is a shortened version of "Liberal Retard" and can be found in the "Urban Dictionary". You can Google search it.

Here is another source:
http://en.wiktion.../libtard

I am sure that VD and others have had a good laugh at kochevnik the Russian's expense, but now that you know that you have been calling rygg2 a "liberal", perhaps you will refrain from hurling insults and not try so hard to imitate VD, yes?

Feb 17, 2013
Wiktionary has Etymology 1 & 2. Etymology 2 is the correct one.
Here is the link for Urban Dictionary:
http://www.urband...=Libtard

Feb 17, 2013
Hi ryggesogn2. :)
"Eugenics was an attempt to use science (the newly discovered Mendelian laws of heredity) to solve social problems (crime, alcoholism, prostitution, rebelliousness), using trained experts. Eugenics gained much support from progressive reform thinkers, who sought to plan social development using expert knowledge in both the social and natural sciences. In eugenics, progressive reformers saw the opportunity to attack social problems efficiently by treating the cause (bad heredity) rather than the effect."
Please, everyone, do be careful to discern between 'enforced eugenics' and 'informed choice eugenics'. There is a vast 'moral' gulf between the two. For example, every time one has a Rhesus-blood test before marrying, one is INFORMED about the probability of serious outcomes (or not, as the case may be). No-one is forcing anyone, only informing. Same goes for any other tests which are sensible precautions given potential for catastrophe in the womb/afterwards. ok?

Feb 17, 2013
The term 'libtard' has nothing to do with Libertarians. It actually is a shortened version of "Liberal Retard" and can be found in the "Urban Dictionary". You can Google search it.
Libertarians are fond of describing their position as "classical liberals" i.e. "conservatives who smoke dope". The Tea Party, proven to be funded and organized by the Kochs, began to use the term to describe hatred and jealousy towards those with degrees employing polysyllabic words. Their usage is no more significant than children attempting to learn new words they don't yet understand. Teabaggers fail to understand they are the bastard spawn of libtards themselves. But whereas the original Tea Party was against they currency act which set up z Rothschild and Walburg central bank in America, the new teabaggers openly embrace corporfascism and the takeover of the world economy by the bankster sector

Feb 17, 2013
Ya, but Conservatives are cheaper.

"Meats pretty cheap nowadays. So are hunting licenses." - Otto

And more murderous.


Feb 17, 2013
RyggTard thinks he has made a point.

"Max Planck, the father of quantum mechanics said we have no right to assume any physical laws exist and if they do, to expect to be the same in the future." - RyggTard

But since he has failed to recognize that science is self correcting, he has done nothing but humiliate himself... Again.

"A corollary is then those who work hard and create wealth are not responsible and the deterministic libertines feel justified in using state power to plunder that wealth." - RyggTard

I see. Your argument is now that taxation is evil because the physical laws of the universe may some day change.

Perhaps you also believe that your underpants will be on backwards if the sun fails to rise tomorrow.

Poor RyggTard. His mental disease is reaching even further into his delusional consciousness.

Feb 17, 2013
Doesn't RyggTard believe that bad breeding was the reason for Ayn Rand's status as a parasite welfare queen?

"Eugenics" - RyggTard

If not then it must have been her immorality.

Feb 17, 2013
"Eugenics" - RyggTard

What RyggTard dishonestly left out of his quote from the abstract.

"Eugenics, the attempt to improve the human species socially through better breeding was a widespread and popular movement in the United States and Europe between 1910 and 1940."

"Much of the impetus for social and economic reform came from class conflict in the period 1880-1930, resulting from industrialization, unemployment, working conditions, periodic depressions, and unionization. In response, the industrialist class adopted firmer measures of economic control (abandonment of laissez-faire principles), the principles of government regulation (interstate commerce, labor), and the cult of industrial efficiency."

Odd that RyggTard would leave out exactly those sentences that point to conservative industrialists as the people who were the most complicit in the eugenics movement. You know. People like Grand daddy Bush who funded the NAZI movement.

In any case, I wonder what Ayn Rand CONT...

Feb 17, 2013
CONT.. Welfare queen Ayn Rand thought about Eugenics when she regularly referred to others as "inferior breeds".

What do you think RyggTard?

Ayn Rand was a clever racist

http://www.dailyk...r-racist

Feb 17, 2013
In moderated forums, the trolls are among the moderators. And win
How did you come into it? For example I was routinely banned from all forums just with moderators, who did act as a pronounced proponents of mainstream physics. It was even the case of PO itself, until it remained moderated. Only the esoteric forums dedicated to "free energy" or "intelligent design" can have moderators hostile toward mainstream physics, but these forums aren't usually visited with proponents of mainstream physics at all, so that the moderators usually have nobody to censor there. Your opinions are very separated from reality, even in the quite unsubstantiated questions in similar way, like those of antialias_po account.

Feb 17, 2013
"And most importantly, writers should be as objective as possible, fighting for Team Science instead of dedicating their careers to promoting Team Red or Team Blue.

In partial fulfillment of this mission, we chose to address an enormous myth that circulates in our media culture; namely, the idea that conservatives are uniquely anti-science and progressives are uniquely pro-science. Nothing could be further from reality."
http://www.psmag....d-50975/

From UW: "understanding the online information environment is particularly important for issues of science and technology."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Is the motivation for understanding the media to better push an agenda or to foster the dissemination of information and promote discussion?

Feb 17, 2013
Ya, but Conservatives are cheaper.

"Meats pretty cheap nowadays. So are hunting licenses." - Otto

And more murderous.
It is impossible to murder an animal unless you give it a cute-sounding name like muffins or dougie. Or sox. Then it becomes some kind of -cide, regardless of whether it is a mercy killing, or self-defense, or whether you eat it or intended to eat it.

So don't name your farm animals or you will go to hell.

Feb 17, 2013
How did you come into it? For example I was routinely banned from all forums just with moderators, who did act as a pronounced proponents of mainstream physics. It was even the case of PO itself, until it remained moderated.
Naw they just gave up on you, as did frajo and his crack team of gang-raters. But then frajo went and sulked for some months boo hoo. And skeptic heretic, arkaleus, and ethelred never did make it back. Even marjon is still here. Sadly, thrasymachus remains, but in stunted form.

Good show you nutter.

Feb 17, 2013
How did you come into it? For example I was routinely banned from all forums just with moderators, who did act as a pronounced proponents of mainstream physics.


You were routinely banned ValeriaT because you would do the same thing on those sites as you do here--pollute any article that even remotely touched on anything to do with energy, fusion, global heating, what have you, with endless pages of half coherent musings, then repeat those musings if you were asked for any kind of proof. You could be warned and suspended over and over, yet you would still come back and pollute threads with the same crap you were suspended for. Banning you became the only way to stop the endless cycle.

And I see you STILL don`t get it.

It was even the case of PO itself, until it remained moderated [\q]

You mean until moderators stopped moderating except for spam. And as far as I am concerned you and vacuum idiot are still spammers.

Feb 17, 2013
The term 'libtard' has nothing to do with Libertarians. It actually is a shortened version of "Liberal Retard" and can be found in the "Urban Dictionary". You can Google search it.
Libertarians are fond of describing their position as "classical liberals" i.e. "conservatives who smoke dope". The Tea Party, proven to be funded and organized by the Kochs, began to use the term to describe hatred and jealousy towards those with degrees employing polysyllabic words. Their usage is no more significant than children attempting to learn new words they don't yet understand. Teabaggers fail to understand they are the bastard spawn of libtards themselves. But whereas the original Tea Party was against they currency act which set up z Rothschild and Walburg central bank in America, the new teabaggers openly embrace corporfascism and the takeover of the world economy by the bankster sector
-koch

In the U.S., American Libertarians were, indeed, classical Liberals (contd)

Feb 17, 2013
(contd)

In the U.S., American Libertarians were, indeed, classical Liberals as defined by certain "liberties" which they had supported and made a part of their earlier era Liberalism, a Liberalism which was entirely based on the Bill of Rights and other American documents that promoted freedoms and equality for all. Libertarians who smoke pot and are illegal drug users understand that by doing so, they take it upon themselves to accept that any harm they bring to themselves or to others is strictly their fault and, if they are TRUE Libertarians, they bring all down on themselves and not put the blame for their poor judgment on society or their environment, or any other circumstance if it was their wish to do what they decided they wanted to do.

Feb 17, 2013
(contd)
American Conservatives and Libertarians both believe in basically the same freedoms and the American political system, but Libertarians differ slightly, in that people are or should be free to smoke pot, use illegal drugs and do pretty much whatever they wish, as long as they understand that there may be consequences to their actions and MUST accept the responsibility for their actions. The gist of Libertarianism is that they are Liberals in the belief that everyone has the right to do pretty much what they please, but that they must pay the penalty if their actions result in something gone wrong for themselves or for others.
IOW…do what you want, but be a responsible person and don't hurt yourself or others in any way. THAT is true Libertarianism that is a far cry from the Liberalism/Progressivism that you and VD seem to be supporting.

Feb 17, 2013
(contd)
American Liberals/Progressives (libtards) are all for freedoms, liberty and the ability to do whatever they wish to do, but with one huge exception…and that is to avoid wherever possible ANY responsibility and paying the penalty for their actions and/or errors in judgement.

The TEA Party is a Conservative group who also believes in freedom, liberties, and support the U.S. Constitution also, but Conservatives do not support reckless endangerment and physical assaults on persons and property that are perpetrated by leftist Liberals/Progressives/Socialists. Conservatives believe that everyone has the rights and freedom to do as they wish, but also must accept responsibility for their actions and results of their actions and be willing to pay the penalty for errors in judgement.

Feb 17, 2013
Evolution Is A Lie From Hell! (Republican Rep. Paul Broun)

"the idea that conservatives are uniquely anti-science" - RyggTard

http://www.youtub...1kuZ31bo

Feb 17, 2013
(contd)
The problem with the American Leftist/Liberals/Progressives/Socialists is that they don't believe that they should have to bear responsibility for their actions and errors in judgement, BUT they want everyone else to take on that responsibility instead…and pay the penalty for the mistakes that Liberals make. The evidence for it is shown in the mistakes made by a President and his appointees who wish to shed all responsibilities for such as the murders of Americans in Benghazi, Libya, and the lack of prevention of the high murder rates in Chicago of young Black children. Vacations, golf and other sports, and an endless campaigning appear to be far more important to the President than running the country. Liberalism/Progressivism/Socialism does that to people in politics.

Feb 17, 2013
Ayn Rand, as brilliant as she was, lived her life the way she wanted, and could be classified as a fiscal Conservative/full-rights Libertarian/moderate Liberal/Capitalist. The fact that she smoked cigarettes and died of lung cancer has no bearing on her literary genius and her Objectivist sense of morality in the corporate world. If you have read her novels and her other writings, you should notice that she was a great believer in honesty and integrity in a well-run organization. Rand considered plagiarism, deceit, cronyism, nepotism, and back-stabbing as abhorrent as murder in the corporate world. Her literary achievements are legendary, and should be required reading for all Fachhochschulen und Universitaten studenten.

VenditardietardtardE says: "Evolution Is A Lie From Hell! (Republican Rep. Paul Broun) "the idea that conservatives are uniquely anti-science" - Rygg"

Broun is a Republican and does not represent Conservatives or Libertarians. Republicans are a part of the problem.

Feb 17, 2013
Then it is fortunate that "bush", "cheney", "pearle", "gingrich" etc, are not cute sounding names.

"It is impossible to murder an animal unless you give it a cute-sounding name like muffins or dougie" - Otto

Feb 17, 2013
American Leftist/Liberals/Progressives/Socialists is that they don't believe that they should have to bear responsibility for their actions and errors in judgement,


All that counts for the 'progressive' sheep is 'good' intentions, but the 'progressive' master mind is more concerned about keeping power than keeping his promises.

Hev
Feb 17, 2013
Any new discoveries about the universe always seem to bring out the religious loonies. Can't they be filtered out leaving the geniune comments.

Feb 17, 2013
Any new discoveries about the universe always seem to bring out the religious loonies. Can't they be filtered out leaving the geniune comments.


You mean the religion of science loonies?

"Kuhn's view is that during normal science scientists neither test nor seek to confirm the guiding theories of their disciplinary matrix. Nor do they regard anomalous results as falsifying those theories."
http://plato.stan...-kuhn/#2

Feb 17, 2013
@obama_socks Liberalism/Progressivism/Socialism does that to people in politics.
More generally, politics and corporatism does that to people in politics

Feb 17, 2013
RyggTard remains totally convinced that just a little more Libertarian/Randite Treason will save America from the devistating economic effects of 30 years of Libertarian/Randite economic treason.

"You mean the religion of science loonies?" - RyggTard

The world is laughing.

Feb 17, 2013
Good intentions are where to start. This is why we give people with good intentions a pass.

"All that counts for the 'progressive' sheep is 'good' intentions" - RyggTard

But those Randites, like RyggTard, who promote Greed, ignorance, treason, and filth... Will never get a pass.

Fortunately, their destruction of their own nation ensures their eradication.


Feb 17, 2013
@rygg2
Yes, there IS such a thing as the "religion of science", as well as the "science of religion". In religion of science, it is believed by many that science is the source of all knowledge and that without science, all knowledge acquisition ceases because each person cannot conceptualize and grasp reality unless someone else can demonstrate the differences between reality and a mere product of the mind and its five senses. The human mind is the observer of reality, and science is only a tool to explain that reality through experimentation and gathering of data to determine validity and results. But the mind, being the observer in all instances, is the last depository of any valid data. Unfortunately, there are those who prefer that science be the last depository and its importance in and of itself be unquestioningly followed and the mind as the observer takes a back seat to science, which is really only a tool, and the scientists as the interface for discovery.


Feb 17, 2013
@obama_socks Liberalism/Progressivism/Socialism does that to people in politics.
More generally, politics and corporatism does that to people in politics
-kochevnik

Let me ask you this: Have you ever held a job with a good salary, good benefits, paid low income taxes, and had the ability to purchase a house, a car, and had enough good credit rating to be offered credit cards at low interest, and be able to afford a wife and kids without going broke?

If so, all that good stuff that you were able to buy, and your job that paid well was brought to you by one or more corporations or small businesses. All those good things don't come up by magic out of the ground (but I've never been to Russia, so who knows?). And if you expect it from government, my advice is don't hold your breath.

Another question: When was the last time that you saw a bum on the street who was claiming to be a CEO carrying a sign offering jobs to people passing by for a decent salary and benefits?

Feb 17, 2013
Ayn Rand, as brilliant as she was, lived her life the way she wanted, and could be classified as a fiscal Conservative/full-rights Libertarian/moderate Liberal/Capitalist......


I actually agree with alot of this post. Rand definately had her eccentricities but there was a lot of good in her writings.

Sometimes obama socks, you surprise me.

Feb 18, 2013
Einstein was of course an Atheist.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them." - Albert Einstein

"If Einstein were commenting here" - DavidW

Feb 18, 2013
Einstein was of course an Atheist.
"If Einstein were commenting here" - DavidW
Hilarious given that of all people Einstein emphasized the RELATIVITY of reality (or at least causality), and relegated absolute truth to the religionists and an absolute frame of reference to middle school kinematics

Feb 18, 2013
I am starting at square 1, in room 101. You guys get that yet? We are defining the first corner of reality. We are alive! Yes, that's a truth!
Fine but you would go further standing upon the shoulders of those who asked the same questions many years ago. And life is vaguely defined from the perspective of hard physics
Can we agree on that? Can we agree we can't change the past?
There is no past and if there were, it would probably many-valued in the same way there are multiple futures. All man has is stories. Man chooses his stories from a large memory bank to maximize his advantage in the present
Can we agree that we are all important? Can we agree we are all equal in the truth that we cannot change the past?
I can but sociopaths are a mutant human form that does exceedingly well in business. The days of empathetic, feeling humans may be limited as they hesitate to pull the trigger while the mutants have twitchy fingers

Feb 18, 2013
I'm in room 702, why not call and ask my secretary for an appointment.

"I am starting at square 1, in room 101. You guys get that yet?" - DavodW

"We are alive! Yes, that's a truth!
Can we agree on that? Can we agree we can't change the past?" - DavidW

No. You haven't defined your terms for "alive" and "past" yet.

Are you alive if you are a hologram? If I can change the past by altering the quantum mechanical entanglements that record it, did it ever occur?

These questions do not vex me, but serve only to confuse my ever sharpening view of how the world works.

There is no point in pondering the big questions until you know enough about it to intelligently define the terms of your question.

We do not yet have sufficient knowledge to do so.

As to the definition of life. It is irrelevant to me.

Feb 18, 2013
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters
Доверяй, но проверяй. Trust, but verify

Feb 19, 2013
I have read her posts. She has a great quality to express herself. Did you miss that positive point?
But expressing bullshit with skill has no value.
Stating there is no truth is insane and/or a direct call for pure evil.
So then why do you post nothing but empty bullshit? Are you declaring yourself evil??
There will be no mercy on evil. Mercy is for the important living. A concept of intellect is not more important than the life of anyone.
And how can you explain truth in exclusively bullshit terms? Please explain.
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.
Please explain how and why this is not utter bullshit. Hallucinating is often the result of malnutrition and/or critical nutrient deficiency. Please seek medical attention as soon as possible. Stop at burger king along the way.

Feb 19, 2013
We can all have the understanding. It is that the truth exists and life exists. This is the temple of reality. We do derive our very importance from the truth in life. You may attempt to dismiss the truth, but every knee bends before it.
Again, can you reduce this to some constituency whereof each part becomes empirically not-bullshit? I dont believe this is possible but I could be wrong.
Now you have lost this. The truth has come upon you as a sword which has cleanly split you in you two and the anvil upon which you stand, leaving only it; the truth, to move forward.
Sorry, but this too I fear is irreducible bullshit, or bullshit in irreducible form. I also believe this is self-evident.

Feb 19, 2013
"Trolls win: Rude blog comments dim the allure of science online"
here is more than one most important truth. They are equal and the same. Isn't it amazing how we find our way? Through truth and life we fine the way.
-And so we are faced with a conundrum - which is the troll? The gnome who posts utter bullshit in a calm and reasonable manner, or the person who responds to this effrontery with righteous indignity? Which is the more truthful in nature?
Needlessly hurting and killing animals (factually doing so for personal pleasure alone) are not actions that are consistent with a mind that has accepted truth in reality.
If your god did not want us to eat animals then why did he make them out of MEAT??

Feb 19, 2013
So, I'm getting a little confused, (actually a lot confused) so, what is this truth thingy? Is weird the same as true? That would make David quite truthful in all respects.

That's the trouble I see with philosophers, they like to say a lot of weird stuff, and find the truth. But they always end up changing their minds and look for some other weird expression of what is the truth. See, here is what it is, the philosophers always seek ways of expressing the truth in a manner that can be adjusted when some other philosopher makes him feel foolish for getting the wrong truth at the right time. (Or the right truth at the wrong time.)

The philosopher's best attribute is that they can always be counted on to say something worthy ridicule and big fun.

Especially, as they are so prone to do, when they don't realize that their truth today, completely contradicts their truth of yesterday. You would think that being as smart as they are, they could remember what they said yesterday.

Feb 19, 2013
. But they always end up changing their minds and look for some other weird expression of what is the truth.


Sound like the path of physics from Newton until today.
What is the truth? Depends on the context does it not?

Feb 20, 2013
There is an axiom here. This is not theory. We are alive and truth does exist. That's where sane and useful conversation starts.

When we pretend that reality is theory we attempt to hide the truth and delegate all observation to fantasy, as to make excuse for out poor behavior. However, the ones suffering are really suffering.
Crossposting is against physorg guidelines. Or are all of your posts full of identical bullshit? I can't tell.

Feb 20, 2013
Especially, as they are so prone to do, when they don't realize that their truth today, completely contradicts their truth of yesterday. You would think that being as smart as they are, they could remember what they said yesterday.

To be fair: the philosophers with formal training and with rigorous application of logical principles (i.e. those worth reading) do manage this.
(Albeit often enough they still suffer from GIGO...garbage in - garbage out...when the premises are already flawed)

The "barstool"-type of philosophers (like our local specimen) fit your description neatly enough, though.

Feb 20, 2013
The "barstool"-type of philosophers (like our local specimen) fit your description neatly enough, though.


Our local specimen isn't very good at it. But I base my "observations" on how I felt when doing required reading of Plato back in school. I found him to have the annoying habit of continually moving the goal post until his characters wearied of twisting and squirming,

These bar-stool philosophers seem to think themselves the newest Socrates, the witty proponent of never ending argument with no goal in sight except to continue the argument.

99.99% of all philosophers I've come across are sophists, especially the ones who accuse others of sophistry.... Plato being the most prominent. It seems that all later philosophers used him as a model to "create" themselves in that respect.

I prefer a question remain the same, until it's either answered or shelved. If the question is ephemeral or "ghostly", then the problem isn't in the answer, the problem is in the question.

Feb 20, 2013
It is difficult to have a worthy conversation when you are talking with people that have different foundations of logic.


Of course yours is the only valid foundation of logic, right?

Blah, Blah, Blah,,,,,

I don't care how important what you think you have to say is. You are more important than what you have to say.


But nothing is as important as getting someone to say something, anything, to you. What is more important than what you (or anyone else) has to say? You just told us the answer, you are.

But isn't annoying that your importance is measured in the amount of ridicule and derision you draw? Fulfilling, eh?

Feb 20, 2013
Blah, Blah, Blah,,,,

We are all equal.


I await with bated breath to see how ya show the slightest "truth" in that. Ya couldn't have picked a more untruthful four words to combine into one sentence.


Feb 20, 2013
Blah, Blah, Blah


See how much more efficient that is? The TRUTH is, everything you have posted can be reduced to three four letter words.

I've taken up enough of your time, I'll let ya undeceive some other people, they need some TRUTH also. (Remember how to shorten it up. A few Blahs go a long way.)

Feb 20, 2013
You wouldn't be standing there in front of someone that just had someone they love beheaded saying blah blah blah. Now you are trying to say you are only trolling. You have had some nice posts here and there. What a waste of who you are and those that you are wishing to destroy.

No I don't know about you Q-star, but I am about to have a business conference with the person in charge of business development for a $150,000,000 a year company very shortly here. Instead of preparing for that conference, I chose instead to give you and the rest my best. Regardless, I think I did the most good.


Blah, Blah, Blah, right back to ya. $150,000,000 a year ya say? Well thanks for passing that up to help me with your Blahs (er, wisdom), but it was wasted. Ya should have took the $150,000,000.

Feb 20, 2013
but I am about to have a business conference with the person in charge of business development for a $150,000,000 a year company very shortly here.

Translation: Job interview for janitor at the local mall.

Feb 20, 2013
To be fair: the philosophers with formal training and with rigorous application of logical principles (i.e. those worth reading) do manage this.
Well sure. Like politicians they have to maintain credibility above all, not only with the crap they pump, but with the crap that their forebears also pumped, from which they draw their legitimacy.

This is easier than it sounds. People who think philobabble contains useful stuff are generally not very bright.

Its like preachers - use the right words and wear the right clothes and, most important, sit in the right building, and people will swoon.
I chose instead to give you and the rest my best. Regardless, I think I did the most good.
Yes and peter popoff did very well there for awhile as I recall.
http://www.youtub...lX_Wn1K4
-Past earnings are not guarantee of future performance.
had someone they love beheaded saying blah blah blah
Oh no! Not Bossie! You must be heartbroken. Whens dinner?

Feb 20, 2013
I was going to post the cow scene from apocalypse now but I just couldnt. I just couldnt.

Feb 20, 2013
People who think philobabble contains useful stuff are generally not very bright.

Popper seems worthwhile.
And I could think of a number of social philosophers that have the occasional valid point

Even Marx. Before I went to uni I had a 3 month summer job at -then- Mercedes-Benz. At that time I really got what Marx meant by 'alienation of the worker from the product'. It was very much like Charlie Chaplin in 'Modern Times' - you do one movement over and over, but you feel no involvement in the product you help build. I didn't even know what type of car the stuff I was processing would end up in. And that tends to demotivate workers massively.

So Marx was all for letting workers have a share in what they build as a remedy to that. The fabrication process being even more extreme in his time I can see where he got the notion.

Feb 20, 2013
Popper seems worthwhile
Sometimes philos will do science and not philosophy, and in this role they are scientists, not philos. Philos invent 'Forms' and 'Ding an Sich' and insist that these things have value using incomprehensible arguments.
social philosophers that have the occasional valid point
Many would argue that political philosophy is not philosophy. Marx and others exploited the conditions created by industrialization, namely initial boom which creates a corresponding pop explosion and an inevitable labor glut, in order to foment a fresh new round of madness and mayhem.

This disparity was thus Solved in the only Manner it could have been - through war and revolution. Marx provided the philobabble ideology which facilitated this.

What did the real-world application of marxism look like? Brutal martial law wielded by dictators with the intent of destroying obsolete cultures and keeping pops in check. In this respect it is no different from any other such Apparatus.

Feb 20, 2013
@DavidW each of which holds no point in proving that absolute truth is not real.
Your notion of an absolute frame of reference was thrown out with Newtonian mechanics. Your "truth" is simply your lame attempt to make a new English pronoun. No different than "he", "she", or "it." A mere placeholder for something you never bother to address. As I wrote before, you post about nothing

Feb 20, 2013
Relax. Science has found the solution and now we need only wait for culture to catch up.
Our emotions are guidance from a feedback loop designed to guide us both away from danger and toward thriving.
As individuals understand how to read their guidance they will begin utilizing it to determine how to approach new information. It is far more reliable than rational minds where information is filtered by our beliefs, expectations, emotional stance in the moment, and focus.
For those who require their religion to approve any guidance they use there is even support for the emotional guidance system in all major religions. See Perspectives on Coping and Resilience (textbook published January 2013) for citations on both the guidance system and the religious support (from the texts) of it.

Better times with greater clarity are approaching. It's going to be fun.

♡ Jeanine

Feb 22, 2013
"Most atheists advocate for replacing fundamentalism, superstition and intolerance by careful and thoughtful scientific discourse. Yet after we posted our survey report, ad hominem attacks abounded, and most of the caustic comments I got (including one from a fellow physics professor) revealed that their authors hadn't even bothered reading the report they were criticizing. "
http://www.huffin...=Science

Feb 24, 2013
@DavidW It matters not what we do for living for us to have importance and to be equal. The absolute truth dictates us as such. Yet, it takes the truth.
People are not equal. Their traits are very divergent. Some are not given the means to accomplish much, whole others like the smartest American with a 200 IQ squander their gifts because of childhood neglect and the rootlessness of feral capitalism. Perhaps by "equal" you meant "equal rights."
until all follow the truth.
The English language has an article 'the', which meatheads see as a fissure in the fabric of spacetime permitting them to summon anything in their imagination into existence. Quite a common pathology in the flyover states

Feb 27, 2013
Had to add this link to this article:

http://scienceblo...out-you/


Feb 27, 2013
Especially this part, from the actual study:

This confinement of recursive hypotheses to a small "echo chamber" reflects the wider phenomenon of radical climate denial, whose ability to generate the appearance of a widely held opinion on the internet is disproportionate to the smaller number of people who actually hold those views (e.g., Leviston, Walker, & Morwinski, 2012). This discrepancy is greatest for the small group of people who deny that the climate is changing (around 6% of respondents; Leviston et al., 2012). Members of this small group believe that their denial is shared by roughly half the population. Thus, although an understanding of science denial is essential given the importance of climate change and the demonstrable role of the blogosphere in delaying mitigative action, it is arguably best met by underscoring the breadth of consensus among scientists (Ding et al 2011; Lewandowsky, Gignac, & Vaughan, 2012) rather than by direct engagement

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more