People make me sad

[Frogguh]

Thought you were describing a theologian for a second there .

I'm still on the lookout for an ideological group that doesn't engage in hyperbole and unfair attacks. Have yet to find it.

[Chrysia]

It is not a propaganda, it is just what gets people emotional. People want to hear about terrible plots of their leaders, about how their nation is evil and is doomed, this kind of stuff. It doesn't mean that all they say is true, it just means it is what people want to believe.

I personally never watch or read any kinds of news. Well, when something major happens, I know about this of course from my friends or someone else, but I would refrain from watching TV news because their primary purpose is not the information delivery, but rather entertainment.

That's pretty much the textbook definition of propaganda.

[May90]

Am PhD Student in Climate Science, can confirm often the general views on climate change are often looked at as laughable. But I'm not saying that to be a dick, what I want to illustrate by saying that is a point that has been made on here, that essentially speaking to anyone who has been in the field longer or researched the topic more in depth, you're always going to feel/look foolish on the most basic level based on human nature. But that doesn't mean there can't be conversation and shouldn't be a conversation. On the contrary, this should spur on more conversation on the topic. It should spur on the desire to learn more about the topic, however, I personally feel based on my experiences that the issue of where conversation breaks down falls into one of two categories.

(1) Passion
People are passionate about the knowledge they have, or think they have. It's just human nature. Once passion, which in turn I lump in faith, gets involved, the conversation is lost, and it has just become a shouting match, with both sides twisting words to prove "Ha, I won." It's a tough thing to push past, and even on the scientific level, this happens often, be it at conferences, or with competing publications.

(2) Pride
The saddest breakdown however comes from when one party feels they just know more than the other, hence their argument must in fact be correct because they clearly know more. This happens quite often in the field of sciences, and is just heartbreaking. There's nothing quite as devastating like being refuted by a higher-level scientist as an aspiring PhD simply because "I've been here longer, so I clearly know more than you."

You can't fight passion, and you can't fight pride, sadly. No matter how hard you may try. Best I've found to do is to explain, as the chart on here really put well, that the discussion has failed, and that you will not be discussing the topic any longer. But never forget to look inward, because we often slip into the categories above as well. Always question everything.

Nice notion. Many people forget that arguments are more often about pride, victory, confidence than actually about something objective. If you are the best teacher in the world and specialist in mathematics, but someone not even close to any science chose to defend the idea that "infinity doesn't exist" - you can argue all you want, but you are not going to change his mind since he doesn't want his mind to be changed, he just wants to win the argument and to feel his supremacy over a mathematician.

[breadisfunny]

People that:

-Don't understand facts and beliefs are opinions

-Value opinion over truth

-Misconstrue truth with opinion.

-Value facts over belief and continue to use "right" instead of "correct"

...make me sad.

Including myself. Dirty habits are hard to quit.


Beliefs are right.

Facts are logical.

The write hand isn't always right.

The weak hand isn't always left.

The right hand isn't always right.

The wrong hand isn't always left.

No amount of wrongs make a right.

No amount of rights make a left.

If you didn't get the last one you weren't paying attention

how is a fact an opinion if it has been proven as a fact?

[May90]

how is a fact an opinion if it has been proven as a fact?

How can you prove something as a fact without basing the proof off your opinion?

[Venant]

How can you prove something as a fact without basing the proof off your opinion?

The scientific method is based upon gathering data, applying rigorous scrutiny to said data, and determining whether your data (facts) justify your hypothesis. Human progression is based upon the establishment of facts which are then used to generate new hypotheses.

It seems like you are arguing from either the viewpoint of an anarcho-capitalist or radical individualist.

[Ghostpanther]

That's my biggest problem with this specific conversation we've been repeatedly having. This is *not* a political debate, its a scientific one and even then the scientists aren't debating it because they're all in agreement.

.

This isn't true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming
Most do, but there are some which still argue the changes in global warming is a natural occurrence with man having very little influence on it. Personally I think pollution of the air, water and soil is a much more serous problem than global warming. However I guess reducing air pollution would help to some degree to appease the global warming crowd.

OP, you should not get mad at those who disagree with you. Getting mad at someone for simply not seeing your point is a sign of intolerance. And is not healthy.

[May90]

The scientific method is based upon gathering data, applying rigorous scrutiny to said data, and determining whether your data (facts) justify your hypothesis. Human progression is based upon the establishment of facts which are then used to generate new hypotheses.

It seems like you are arguing from either the viewpoint of an anarcho-capitalist or radical individualist.

You can interpret the data you've gathered differently, based on your perceptions. For some people shooting in the schools is a proof that weapons should be banished from civilian use, for others it is a proof that weapons should become even more widespread so people do not see them as something special and do not use them for organized violence. Some people will say that the registered rise of global temperatures means that we are responsible for global warming, other people will say that it just proves that the climate changes much more significantly than people can ever affect it.

[Zylos]

You can interpret the data you've gathered differently, based on your perceptions. For some people shooting in the schools is a proof that weapons should be banished from civilian use, for others it is a proof that weapons should become even more widespread so people do not see them as something special and do not use them for organized violence. Some people will say that the registered rise of global temperatures means that we are responsible for global warming, other people will say that it just proves that the climate changes much more significantly than people can ever affect it.

That's looking at pieces of the data and leads to biased conclusions. In order to actually come to a sound conclusion you need to look at all the data. Building on your example, the drastically reduced amount of gun violence in other civilized countries which do not allow guns would be another piece of data to consider in drawing a conclusion. You can't just pick one piece of information and declare an opinion to be fact.

[May90]

That's looking at pieces of the data and leads to biased conclusions. In order to actually come to a sound conclusion you need to look at all the data. Building on your example, the drastically reduced amount of gun violence in other civilized countries which do not allow guns would be another piece of data to consider in drawing a conclusion. You can't just pick one piece of information and declare an opinion to be fact.

No, but you can dismiss some data as not proving your point and accept only the data that proves your point - and that's how is happens everywhere, including science. Just look at these "global warmers" that collect huge pools of data, then dismiss half of it that contradicts their predictions as irrelevant. Or physicists that dismiss all these evidences of super-light speed as "errors in measurement" or "events that cannot be classified in the current model". It is not bad that it happens - if we never dismissed evidence that contradicts our statements, we would never be able to make a single statement at all. But we should realize that all our models are limited and, as such, only approximate the reality, sometimes really badly. Everyone can have his/her own models - they will never work perfectly, but some models work better than others. In the end it all comes down to a personal preference, and if some model is supported by the majority of the scientists, it doesn't make it more "right" than North Korean propaganda that is also supported by the majority of citizens.