|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 08 2017 03:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 02:39 Buckyman wrote:On February 08 2017 02:37 LegalLord wrote:
Hooray for party-line votes on issues like being qualified to run the Department of Education. The hypothesis I heard on this was opposition from teachers' unions. The two Republicans which defected had received thousands of dollars from teachers unions. Under-reported story. I should add that Devos is a school choice advocate, and successful changes on that front would necessarily weaken the power and influence of teaher's unions.
The opposition to deVos is not because she would weaken teacher unions but because she is utterly unqualified and doesn't know a thing about education. As shown by her hearing where she failed the most basic of questions.
|
On February 08 2017 02:57 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 02:15 ChristianS wrote:
Agreed that lumping everyone together under that heading is inelegant, but one can hardly be asked to anticipate and respond to every possible hypothesis the denialists might or might not believe. Denialists usually don't put forward alternate hypotheses, because there aren't really any good ones. Even with the benefit of hindsight they can't offer better explanations of the facts than the scientific consensus. So instead they point to holes at the fringe where scientists can't always predict the evidence perfectly, and use it as an excuse to reject large swaths of scientific fact without considering the merits. If people want us to consider their own explanation of the facts they should put it forward, until then they're just heckling. Is "the data isn't good enough to support any hypothesis for a single cause of warming, therefore we should reject the CO2 hypothesis and can't prove any alternative hypothesis" an invalid claim on its face?
Other than it being horribly underspecified, there is nothing wrong with it. You are allowed to say "I don't know". The problem is that almost all scientists disagree that we don't have enough data.
It seems like you're arguing a variant of the induction problem. Just because the sun came up in the east every day that I myself observed it, and every day other people reported they observed it, is that enough to say the sun will rise tomorrow in the east?
Some of the data we gathered for the sun rising in the east is rather shakey. I asked Joe the alcoholic whether he saw where the sun rose, and he claimed it rose eashtish: not very reliable. Moreover, Mary thinks she saw it rise in the west on this one day.
But we have a pretty good hypothesis about the rotation of the earth, and it explains not only sunrise, but partially explains the tides as well! Now there's bound to be people who disagree with this hypothesis (and when it was first proposed, a LOT of people disagreed with the hypothesis), but as we collect more and more data, and we curate it to ensure that Mary, Joe and a whole lot of other people all observe the sunrise, and we don't rely on just a single, untrustworthy, sensor, we gather more and more evidence that the sun does indeed always rise in the east, and we gather data about the tides, and figure out that if the earth rotates around the sun, and the moon rotates around the earth, then we can explain sunrise, tides, and even seasons. This model makes predictions about sunrise tomorrow, and that it'll be spring in 1 1/2 months. And we can wait and see whether that comes about.
But NONE of this will absolutely guarantee that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, after tomorrow, or in 6 months time. The theory we built on all these billions of observations *could* be wrong.
So back to climate science: could we be wrong? Yes. We could always be wrong. And if we *could* be wrong on our model of the solar system, we could definitely be wrong about AGW, because we haven't collected anywhere near the amount of data on the latter as we have on the former. However, almost all scientist who work in the area consider that we have tested the theory of AGW in many different ways, and it has shown to be robust. It not only explains the data in hindsight, but it is predictive. So to reject it, you have to:
1) Be an extreme skeptic in general (as in, you reject the underlying epistemology)
2) Have very strong evidence that the model is wrong
3) Be an idiot.
Almost all people who claim AGW is false fall into (3)... and I'd argue that category (1) is just a subcategory of (3). I have so far not seen anybody who falls in category (2).
|
On February 08 2017 01:15 Acrofales wrote:
I have not yet seen a case where a university protected someone knowingly doing bad science
Side note: There's an ongoing defamation case, Mann v. National Review, where a climate scientist is suing someone for claiming exactly this. And the courts let the suit go forwards despite severe free speech concerns.
Now is not a healthy time for openly discussing this issue.
|
On February 08 2017 03:17 farvacola wrote:
DeVos gave numerous senators voting on her confirmation thousands of dollars. Pat Toomey called DeVos "a great pick" but did not mention that he received over sixty thousand dollars directly from her. Underreported story.
Sander's line of questioning basically said it all about her, she would not be the nominee if she and her family had not donated millions upon millions over the years. 0 qualifications or know how.
|
On February 08 2017 02:59 biology]major wrote:
Not too sure what Devos is all about, but failing to get all the republican votes is hilarious. I didn't really have any problems with the other cabinet picks, but I wouldn't have minded her not going through. Any source on her agenda?
The organizations and policies that she had backed benefited for-profit, private, religious, and online schools, and she had been a huge proponent for charter schools and school choice. She also wants to pass more power down to the states.
Her experience is almost entirely with charter schools, not public schools, and this showed in her confirmation hearings where showed lack of knowledge about various public school regulations and laws. It's no surprise that those who are involved in or rely on public education are nervous about her leading the sector.
I have a lot of friends who are in music education in public schools, and they are all very anxious about DeVos's policies ultimately cutting support to their schools and livelihoods.
|
On February 08 2017 03:20 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 02:57 Buckyman wrote:On February 08 2017 02:15 ChristianS wrote:
Agreed that lumping everyone together under that heading is inelegant, but one can hardly be asked to anticipate and respond to every possible hypothesis the denialists might or might not believe. Denialists usually don't put forward alternate hypotheses, because there aren't really any good ones. Even with the benefit of hindsight they can't offer better explanations of the facts than the scientific consensus. So instead they point to holes at the fringe where scientists can't always predict the evidence perfectly, and use it as an excuse to reject large swaths of scientific fact without considering the merits. If people want us to consider their own explanation of the facts they should put it forward, until then they're just heckling. Is "the data isn't good enough to support any hypothesis for a single cause of warming, therefore we should reject the CO2 hypothesis and can't prove any alternative hypothesis" an invalid claim on its face? Other than it being horribly underspecified, there is nothing wrong with it. You are allowed to say "I don't know". The problem is that almost all scientists disagree that we don't have enough data. It seems like you're arguing a variant of the induction problem. Just because the sun came up in the east every day that I myself observed it, and every day other people reported they observed it, is that enough to say the sun will rise tomorrow in the east? Some of the data we gathered for the sun rising in the east is rather shakey. I asked Joe the alcoholic whether he saw where the sun rose, and he claimed it rose eashtish: not very reliable. Moreover, Mary thinks she saw it rise in the west on this one day. But we have a pretty good hypothesis about the rotation of the earth, and it explains not only sunrise, but partially explains the tides as well! Now there's bound to be people who disagree with this hypothesis (and when it was first proposed, a LOT of people disagreed with the hypothesis), but as we collect more and more data, and we curate it to ensure that Mary, Joe and a whole lot of other people all observe the sunrise, and we don't rely on just a single, untrustworthy, sensor, we gather more and more evidence that the sun does indeed always rise in the east, and we gather data about the tides, and figure out that if the earth rotates around the sun, and the moon rotates around the earth, then we can explain sunrise, tides, and even seasons. This model makes predictions about sunrise tomorrow, and that it'll be spring in 1 1/2 months. And we can wait and see whether that comes about. But NONE of this will absolutely guarantee that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, after tomorrow, or in 6 months time. The theory we built on all these billions of observations *could* be wrong. So back to climate science: could we be wrong? Yes. We could always be wrong. And if we *could* be wrong on our model of the solar system, we could definitely be wrong about AGW, because we haven't collected anywhere near the amount of data on the latter as we have on the former. However, almost all scientist who work in the area consider that we have tested the theory of AGW in many different ways, and it has shown to be robust. It not only explains the data in hindsight, but it is predictive. So to reject it, you have to: 1) Be an extreme skeptic in general (as in, you reject the underlying epistemology) 2) Have very strong evidence that the model is wrong 3) Be an idiot. Almost all people who claim AGW is false fall into (3)... and I'd argue that category (1) is just a subcategory of (3). I have so far not seen anybody who falls in category (2).
Or 4) have a vested interest in it being wrong. Like for example, owning or being paid by people who own fossile fuel companies.
|
On February 08 2017 03:25 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 03:17 farvacola wrote:
DeVos gave numerous senators voting on her confirmation thousands of dollars. Pat Toomey called DeVos "a great pick" but did not mention that he received over sixty thousand dollars directly from her. Underreported story. Sander's line of questioning basically said it all about her, she would not be the nominee if she and her family had not donated millions upon millions over the years. 0 qualifications or know how.
That's why I'm really surprised Trump chose her.
|
On February 08 2017 03:27 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 03:20 Acrofales wrote:On February 08 2017 02:57 Buckyman wrote:On February 08 2017 02:15 ChristianS wrote:
Agreed that lumping everyone together under that heading is inelegant, but one can hardly be asked to anticipate and respond to every possible hypothesis the denialists might or might not believe. Denialists usually don't put forward alternate hypotheses, because there aren't really any good ones. Even with the benefit of hindsight they can't offer better explanations of the facts than the scientific consensus. So instead they point to holes at the fringe where scientists can't always predict the evidence perfectly, and use it as an excuse to reject large swaths of scientific fact without considering the merits. If people want us to consider their own explanation of the facts they should put it forward, until then they're just heckling. Is "the data isn't good enough to support any hypothesis for a single cause of warming, therefore we should reject the CO2 hypothesis and can't prove any alternative hypothesis" an invalid claim on its face? Other than it being horribly underspecified, there is nothing wrong with it. You are allowed to say "I don't know". The problem is that almost all scientists disagree that we don't have enough data. It seems like you're arguing a variant of the induction problem. Just because the sun came up in the east every day that I myself observed it, and every day other people reported they observed it, is that enough to say the sun will rise tomorrow in the east? Some of the data we gathered for the sun rising in the east is rather shakey. I asked Joe the alcoholic whether he saw where the sun rose, and he claimed it rose eashtish: not very reliable. Moreover, Mary thinks she saw it rise in the west on this one day. But we have a pretty good hypothesis about the rotation of the earth, and it explains not only sunrise, but partially explains the tides as well! Now there's bound to be people who disagree with this hypothesis (and when it was first proposed, a LOT of people disagreed with the hypothesis), but as we collect more and more data, and we curate it to ensure that Mary, Joe and a whole lot of other people all observe the sunrise, and we don't rely on just a single, untrustworthy, sensor, we gather more and more evidence that the sun does indeed always rise in the east, and we gather data about the tides, and figure out that if the earth rotates around the sun, and the moon rotates around the earth, then we can explain sunrise, tides, and even seasons. This model makes predictions about sunrise tomorrow, and that it'll be spring in 1 1/2 months. And we can wait and see whether that comes about. But NONE of this will absolutely guarantee that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, after tomorrow, or in 6 months time. The theory we built on all these billions of observations *could* be wrong. So back to climate science: could we be wrong? Yes. We could always be wrong. And if we *could* be wrong on our model of the solar system, we could definitely be wrong about AGW, because we haven't collected anywhere near the amount of data on the latter as we have on the former. However, almost all scientist who work in the area consider that we have tested the theory of AGW in many different ways, and it has shown to be robust. It not only explains the data in hindsight, but it is predictive. So to reject it, you have to: 1) Be an extreme skeptic in general (as in, you reject the underlying epistemology) 2) Have very strong evidence that the model is wrong 3) Be an idiot. Almost all people who claim AGW is false fall into (3)... and I'd argue that category (1) is just a subcategory of (3). I have so far not seen anybody who falls in category (2). Or 4) have a vested interest in it being wrong. Like for example, owning or being paid by people who own fossile fuel companies.
I was speaking about what people believe, not what people say 
|
On February 08 2017 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 03:13 Danglars wrote:On February 08 2017 02:39 Buckyman wrote:On February 08 2017 02:37 LegalLord wrote:
Hooray for party-line votes on issues like being qualified to run the Department of Education. The hypothesis I heard on this was opposition from teachers' unions. The two Republicans which defected had received thousands of dollars from teachers unions. Under-reported story. I should add that Devos is a school choice advocate, and successful changes on that front would necessarily weaken the power and influence of teaher's unions. The opposition to deVos is not because she would weaken teacher unions but because she is utterly unqualified and doesn't know a thing about education. As shown by her hearing where she failed the most basic of questions.
The exactly two Republican flips are suspect because of the sizable donations they got from the NEA. She may be opposed for other reasons too. But many laughs at your "utterly unqualified," "doesn't know a thing about education," "failed the most basic of questions."
|
On February 08 2017 03:27 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 03:25 Slaughter wrote:On February 08 2017 03:17 farvacola wrote:
DeVos gave numerous senators voting on her confirmation thousands of dollars. Pat Toomey called DeVos "a great pick" but did not mention that he received over sixty thousand dollars directly from her. Underreported story. Sander's line of questioning basically said it all about her, she would not be the nominee if she and her family had not donated millions upon millions over the years. 0 qualifications or know how. That's why I'm really surprised Trump chose her.
Really? Your surprised that Trump, who filled his cabinet with low quality experts who donated money or otherwise supported him, choice someone who lacks basic understanding about education but donated lots of money?
|
On February 08 2017 03:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On February 08 2017 03:13 Danglars wrote:On February 08 2017 02:39 Buckyman wrote:On February 08 2017 02:37 LegalLord wrote:
Hooray for party-line votes on issues like being qualified to run the Department of Education. The hypothesis I heard on this was opposition from teachers' unions. The two Republicans which defected had received thousands of dollars from teachers unions. Under-reported story. I should add that Devos is a school choice advocate, and successful changes on that front would necessarily weaken the power and influence of teaher's unions. The opposition to deVos is not because she would weaken teacher unions but because she is utterly unqualified and doesn't know a thing about education. As shown by her hearing where she failed the most basic of questions. The exactly two Republican flips are suspect because of the sizable donations they got from the NEA. She may be opposed for other reasons too. But many laughs at your "utterly unqualified," "doesn't know a thing about education," "failed the most basic of questions."
Did you listen to or read thoroughly about her confirmation hearing and background?
|
On February 08 2017 03:24 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 01:15 Acrofales wrote:
I have not yet seen a case where a university protected someone knowingly doing bad science Side note: There's an ongoing defamation case, Mann v. National Review, where a climate scientist is suing someone for claiming exactly this. And the courts let the suit go forwards despite severe free speech concerns. Now is not a healthy time for openly discussing this issue.
That seems like a deceptive way to introduce and bring up the case compared to something more neutrally written like:
Attacks on the work and reputation of climatologists continued, and Mann discussed with colleagues the need for a strong response when they were slandered or libeled. In July 2012,[52] Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blogger Rand Simberg accused Mann of "deception" and "engaging in data manipulation" and alleged that the Penn State investigation that had cleared Mann was a "cover-up and whitewash" comparable to the recent Jerry Sandusky sex scandal, "except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data." The CEI blog editor then removed the sentence as "inappropriate", but a National Review blog post by Mark Steyn cited it and alleged that Mann's hockey stick graph was "fraudulent".[53][54]
Before the case could go to discovery, CEI and National Review filed a court motion to dismiss it under anti-SLAPP legislation, with the claim that they had merely been using exaggerated language which was acceptable against a public figure. In July 2013 the judge ruled against this motion,[55][56] and when the defendants took this to appeal a new judge also denied their motion to dismiss, in January 2014. The National Review changed its lawyers, and Steyn decided to represent himself in court.[52][57] Journalist Seth Shulman, at the Union of Concerned Scientists, welcomed the judge's statement that accusations of fraud "go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable."[58]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#Defamation_lawsuit
I mean we can argue about the merits of Libel laws and defamation suits, but if you assert that someone is maliciously fraudulent at their job based on false assertions that seems like a totally reasonable time for someone to sue you for libel. Even if the data was fraudulent or wrong you'd need to be able to prove malice and intent for the statements to be true.
But either way the current case seems to have nothing to do with the university except that the university's own reviews cleared Mann?
|
On February 08 2017 03:24 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 01:15 Acrofales wrote:
I have not yet seen a case where a university protected someone knowingly doing bad science Side note: There's an ongoing defamation case, Mann v. National Review, where a climate scientist is suing someone for claiming exactly this. And the courts let the suit go forwards despite severe free speech concerns. Now is not a healthy time for openly discussing this issue.
Insofar as I understand the NR defense (assuming their own words are sufficient): http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443314/dc-court-appeals-first-amendment-michael-mann-decision-national-review-cei
They don't claim they were right. Just that being wrong was not defamation because the law gives them broad leeway with regards to "expression of political and scientific controversy".
|
On February 08 2017 03:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 03:27 biology]major wrote:On February 08 2017 03:25 Slaughter wrote:On February 08 2017 03:17 farvacola wrote:
DeVos gave numerous senators voting on her confirmation thousands of dollars. Pat Toomey called DeVos "a great pick" but did not mention that he received over sixty thousand dollars directly from her. Underreported story. Sander's line of questioning basically said it all about her, she would not be the nominee if she and her family had not donated millions upon millions over the years. 0 qualifications or know how. That's why I'm really surprised Trump chose her. Really? Your surprised that Trump, who filled his cabinet with low quality experts who donated money or otherwise supported him, choice someone who lacks basic understanding about education but donated lots of money?
He probably believed he was going to 'drain the swamp'.
I don't want to be hyperbolic because I haven't studied US History to make grand claims like 'worst appointment ever', but if you ever needed to see crystal, fucking, clear cronyism, party politics and complete disregard of qualifications and aptitude look no further. Our government is completely broken, this confirmation vote makes it painfully clear that ethics have no place in politics. The GOP (in this instance) are completely spineless. It is impossible to research DeVos history and listen to her confirmation hearings and think 'Yeah, this person should lead the Dept. Of Education." This isn't a political position or a refusal to see another perspective, she's completely and totally unfit.
|
On February 08 2017 03:24 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 01:15 Acrofales wrote:
I have not yet seen a case where a university protected someone knowingly doing bad science Side note: There's an ongoing defamation case, Mann v. National Review, where a climate scientist is suing someone for claiming exactly this. And the courts let the suit go forwards despite severe free speech concerns. Now is not a healthy time for openly discussing this issue.
Not just NR the organization but also the private individual Mark Steyn. Speaking out against prevailing orthodoxy, even just one misbehaving scientist, could tie you up in lawsuits for close to a decade and bankrupt you with legal costs. The first amendment might be a very expensive right to assert on climate change, depending on how that case eventually turns out.
|
On February 07 2017 20:55 SoSexy wrote:
I still can't understand these double standards in politics. The hypocrisy in today's discussions is just so much that it puts me off instantly from having a meaningful conversation. Can anyone try to answer some questions without prejudices? Maybe in PM...
I can answer them in pm. there will always be some prejudices, and everyone has some, though degrees vary a good bit. or you can ask them in thread and get a range of responses, some of which will be rather poor.
it is indeed hard to have good conversations, those tend to require heavy moderation, especially to keep out the problem people (and there is much disagreement on who those people are)
|
On February 08 2017 03:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 03:24 Buckyman wrote:On February 08 2017 01:15 Acrofales wrote:
I have not yet seen a case where a university protected someone knowingly doing bad science Side note: There's an ongoing defamation case, Mann v. National Review, where a climate scientist is suing someone for claiming exactly this. And the courts let the suit go forwards despite severe free speech concerns. Now is not a healthy time for openly discussing this issue. Not just NR the organization but also the private individual Mark Steyn. Speaking out against prevailing orthodoxy, even just one misbehaving scientist, could tie you up in lawsuits for close to a decade and bankrupt you with legal costs. The first amendment might be a very expensive right to assert on climate change, depending on how that case eventually turns out.
I don't know, I think there's a legitimate concern about lawsuits and the free press (see Techdirt's pending case for example), but this doesn't seem like an obviously bad one? The paper criticized Mann's motives and intent with no factual basis. Criticizing his work and criticizing his intent & motives are very different things.
|
On February 08 2017 03:27 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 02:59 biology]major wrote:
Not too sure what Devos is all about, but failing to get all the republican votes is hilarious. I didn't really have any problems with the other cabinet picks, but I wouldn't have minded her not going through. Any source on her agenda? The organizations and policies that she had backed benefited for-profit, private, religious, and online schools, and she had been a huge proponent for charter schools and school choice. She also wants to pass more power down to the states. Her experience is almost entirely with charter schools, not public schools, and this showed in her confirmation hearings where showed lack of knowledge about various public school regulations and laws. It's no surprise that those who are involved in or rely on public education are nervous about her leading the sector. I have a lot of friends who are in music education in public schools, and they are all very anxious about DeVos's policies ultimately cutting support to their schools and livelihoods.
1. Charter schools are public schools.
2. If music departments need federal funding, that is part of the problem.
3. The "super qualified experts" of the Obama administration recently dropped an evaluation of their signature initiative: Billions spent, 0 results. Hard to see how you could do worse.
TLDR: A small child with a water pistol could run DOE and nothing would be worse off.
|
Charter schools are public schools.
Uh that's kinda being obtuse for no real point unless you really don't understand the difference between charter schools and traditional public schools that operate very differently (and by different entities).
|
On February 08 2017 03:34 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 03:31 Danglars wrote:On February 08 2017 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On February 08 2017 03:13 Danglars wrote:On February 08 2017 02:39 Buckyman wrote:On February 08 2017 02:37 LegalLord wrote:
Hooray for party-line votes on issues like being qualified to run the Department of Education. The hypothesis I heard on this was opposition from teachers' unions. The two Republicans which defected had received thousands of dollars from teachers unions. Under-reported story. I should add that Devos is a school choice advocate, and successful changes on that front would necessarily weaken the power and influence of teaher's unions. The opposition to deVos is not because she would weaken teacher unions but because she is utterly unqualified and doesn't know a thing about education. As shown by her hearing where she failed the most basic of questions. The exactly two Republican flips are suspect because of the sizable donations they got from the NEA. She may be opposed for other reasons too. But many laughs at your "utterly unqualified," "doesn't know a thing about education," "failed the most basic of questions." Did you listen to or read thoroughly about her confirmation hearing and background?
I caught as much as I could and focused my reading of the transcripts on what was found to be most objectionable. It looked like normal CYA vs partisan lines of attack/commit to X. Any useful reform must come from outside the existing bureaucracy. The thought of reform itself is a very divisive topic so I was expecting some of these 'gotcha' questions ... I read the NEA donated 2.3 million to Democrats in 2016, 740k alone to the 11 dems that opposed her in committee. The opposition is to the reforms proposed and differences in thought on regulations of education in general. GOP vs Democrat divide expressed as a 51-50 divide on Devos.
I first heard of Devos from a friend that was also under consideration for sec of education and turned down a senior advisory role. He didn't think much of Devos personally for other reforms besides school choice that our country needs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
