Egotistical Google Experts

[adrea]

We were not talking about most things. We were talking about the Earth Sun distance so please stop with the strawman.

 

If you had read the entire discussion you would have known that we was talking most of your knowledge and not just the example I gave. Selective reading is the cause of your confusion.

 

Have you decided if you are going to retract your libel about how most scientists falsify data? Can we expect a retraction?

 

You have made another error, I didn't say most, there's no wonder you are often wrong, you insert words to change the meaning and ignore whole parts of a conversation in order to change its context.

[Eric Arthur]

 

Climate scientists are often accused of publishing false information, and its not my accusation, its been published in numerous media sources.

 

Those claims come out of leaked emails from the UEA, made by people who don't understand what they are reading. Other people repeat the misunderstandings and attribute them with accuracy that they don't deserve.

 

The same is happening now with fracking.

 

Google it if you don't believe me

[Cyclone]

Can you prove that, no thought not, its just your biased opinion.

It's a logical deduction, not an opinion.

The science is repeatable, it is repeated by other teams and it is tested.

A rumour is just that, like the ones you keep repeating, not verifiable, basically worthless.

Not everyone can publish a paper about their observations so they chat about it or post them on forums such as this, their peers can then review it and confirm that they have also observed the same thing.

 

That's called confirmation bias, and it's also not evidence, it's just anecdotes.

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2015 at 12:35 ----------

 

If you had read the entire discussion you would have known that we was talking most of your knowledge and not just the example I gave. Selective reading is the cause of your confusion.

 

 

 

You have made another error, I didn't say most, there's no wonder you are often wrong, you insert words to change the meaning and ignore whole parts of a conversation in order to change its context.

 

What you actually said was that "scientists often publish incorrect information".

 

You haven't offered any proof for this of course, nor will you.

 

I'm not really sure if you have a point, your last few posts were barely comprehensible, so perhaps you could just reiterate clearly what point you are trying to make.

[adrea]

It's a logical deduction, not an opinion.

 

No it isn't, its just your opinion.

 

The science is repeatable, it is repeated by other teams and it is tested.

A rumour is just that, like the ones you keep repeating, not verifiable, basically worthless.

The science isn't repeatable by the vast majority, we have to take it on faith that the scientists are being honest, and they are often not or they are later proved to have got it wrong. 1000 independent people saying the same thing based on their own personal experience is very likely to be true, and you can if you wish verify what they say by doing some of your own research.

 

That's called confirmation bias, and it's also not evidence, it's just anecdotes.

No it isn't, its just you being biased against anything or anyone that says anything that counters your beliefs.

 

What you actually said was that "scientists often publish incorrect information".

Often isn't most and they do.

 

 

 

You haven't offered any proof for this of course, nor will you.

Your bias would stop your from seeing anything as proof, hence it would be pointless posting it, but you also haven't offered any proof to support your stance.

[RootsBooster]

No it isn't, its just your opinion.

 

If it's deduced, using logic, then it's a logical deduction. As opposed to just forming an opinion based on what someone else said, which is merely hearsay.

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2015 at 17:47 ----------

 

Its very likley that most of your knowledge is based on what someone said or something you read which was based on what someone said.

 

I know how far it is to the sun but I didn't measure it, I just believe the person that did

 

You don't know how far the Sun is, you only believe the information you have been given about it. It's a belief that can easily be verified to be true, in which case you would then know.

 

it must be very difficult for you living in a world in which you trust no one.

strangely, you seem to think that if I don't automatically accept someone's story, then I must believe they are lying.

 

It's quite possible (and also the most logical response) to simply reserve judgement about a story which may be true or may not be, until further details or evidence emerge.

 

There's a word for people who accept things too easily.

Edited August 22, 2015 by RootsBooster

[Cyclone]

I heard that someone called adrea was posting on the internet about science and opinions and got it all wrong. Someone on the tram told me, so it must be true.

[adrea]

If it's deduced, using logic, then it's a logical deduction. As opposed to just forming an opinion based on what someone else said, which is merely hearsay.

Its logical to deduce that if 1000 people with no connection to each other and from different parts of the country all say they know someone that had a child to secure benefits, that at least some will be telling the truth and do in fact know someone that had a child to secure benefits.

 

strangely, you seem to think that if I don't automatically accept someone's story, then I must believe they are lying.

First time we have had a chat so I know nothing at all about you.

 

 

 

It's quite possible (and also the most logical response) to simply reserve judgement about a story which may be true or may not be, until further details or evidence emerge.

I agree and that is the whole point of the debate.

[RootsBooster]

Its logical to deduce that if 1000 people with no connection to each other and from different parts of the country all say they know someone that had a child to secure benefits, that at least some will be telling the truth and do in fact know someone that had a child to secure benefits.

You seem to be unable to keep your story straight.

Otherwise known as wriggling.

Sometimes known as a 'Smiffy'.

 

First time we have had a chat so I know nothing at all about you.

That didn't stop you from making this assumption about me...

it must be very difficult for you living in a world in which you trust no one.

 

And then there's this...

I agree and that is the whole point of the debate.

...you think it's logical to reserve judgement?

 

So if 1000 people claimed they each knew somebody who'd had a child solely for the reason of getting a council house, you'd reserve judgement and not believe them until further information or evidence was presented?

[adrea]

You seem to be unable to keep your story straight.

]

My story is straight, if 1000 people with no knowledge of each other claim to know someone that can touch their nose with their tongue then its logical to deduce that some people can touch their nose with their tongue. No need to see it for your self to believe it, if only one person makes the claim then I would want more evidence to believe it, I wouldn't claim they are talking nonsense though as many on here would.

 

That didn't stop you from making this assumption about me...

It wasn't an assumption, it was an observation based on your post.

 

And then there's this...

 

...you think it's logical to reserve judgement?

 

So if 1000 people claimed they each knew somebody who'd had a child solely for the reason of getting a council house, you'd reserve judgement and not believe them until further information or evidence was presented?

 

If just one person said it I would reserve judgment, but the greater the number the more likley I would be to believe it. A bit like some of the celebrities accused of rape, one person makes the claim and I would reserve judgment, but I wouldn't say they are lying, but if 100 people make very similar claims I would make the judgment that at least some are telling the truth.

[Annie Bynnol]

... 1000 independent people saying the same thing based on their own personal experience is very likely to be true, and you can if you wish verify what they say by doing some of your own research.

 

If you ask 1000 people how much they weigh the vast majority will give the wrong number in the wrong units.

 

Since there are as yet less than 1000 people on the Moon we cannot ask them to make a judgement on what their weight is. If asked they would give a very different answer to the 1000 thousand on Earth. How would they resolve their difference of opinion?- they could turn to a scientist aged 12 who could explain a theory to them.

 

Luckily as knowledge and understanding are neither instinctive, deductive emotional or democratic, the approximations* that are Newtons' Laws work and weight is a force measured in newtons and depend on mass and gravity.

 

*Ask Einstein etc.