|
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 02:54 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 02:34 Sermokala wrote:On February 08 2017 00:39 Simberto wrote:On February 08 2017 00:13 Sermokala wrote:On February 08 2017 00:06 Velr wrote:On February 07 2017 23:57 Sermokala wrote:
I'd think creationists would be given more credibility scientifically then deniers. Thats because "creationism" is a very creative field, its actually some form of literature/philosophy/fiction :p. You don't "disregard" Facts, you just create new ones up that work "together" with the actual Facts. Its "extra-special-creative-Facts" on top of "Facts". Denial is just "alternative Facts". But still you can end up with a genuine shrug from someone who doesn't agree with creationists when you are both on the same page of facts. The big bang and dark matter are as faith based explination as saying a mythical god caused it and does it. That is because dark matter and the big bang are not "done science". You can use telescopes to look pretty far into the past, but once you get to about 13.3 billions of years ago, the universe is so full of stuff that you can't actually look through it anymore, so you can't look further back than that. You can, however, use the data you have from the points in time that you can see, and especially redshift data, to make a model that fits the stuff we can observe. And that model leads to a big bang. Dark matter and Dark energy are similarly weird concepts that are used to make the things we observe fit to the laws of nature that we already know. Galaxies rotate in a way that can only be explained if there is a lot of matter that we can not observe. We don't know what that stuff is, but at this point, either our understanding of gravity is a bit off or there is stuff we can't see in space. A lot of that stuff. Both can be correct, but since no one has come up with a better theory of gravity that explains all the stuff we currently know, we now work of the assumption that there is this nebulous dark matter, and try to figure out what that stuff actually is. Dark energy is something that is necessary to explain why the universe expands in the way we can observe it expanding. We have even less of an idea about it than about dark matter, but once again we either have dark energy, or something is fundamentally wrong with our understanding of how the expansion of space itself works. Since so far noone has had a better theory about how space expands, that explains both the stuff we know AND the effects currently attributed to dark energy, we try to figure out what that dark energy could be. But these things are all far from scientific fact, and thus they don't really require faith. In fact, faith is counterproductive. They represent problems that we are in the process of trying to figure out. We have models that explain the things that we can observe. Of course you can always explain everything with "god does it because god wants to do it". But that is not a very productive point of view, as there is no additional knowledge to be gained from it, nor can predictions be made using it. It is a completely nonfalsifiable theory, and thus we don't actually gain anything from it. Meanwhile, we gain a lot from trying to figure out what dark matter is, or if there is none, what else has the effect of galaxies not rotating in a way that is consistent to there only being the visible matter. Your using a ton of words that don't amount to much. Dark matter and dark energy are not real things. They're just there beacuse it's the only way to make the models work but that's where they end. Adding made up concepts doesn't allow you to backtrack and come up with a new theory now that the model works. I don't see how beliving is non productive unless you apply that there is no need to figure out the how and the search for the how is compatible with both sides. This is the Crux of my argument beacuse there is enough of a leap between faith in a creator and the belief in the opposite. There is an arguable gap in our current science that doesn't exist in global warming. I'm not interested in a faith conversation but that danglars can defend or argue for global warming deniers is worse then creationism debaters. Beacuse it's anti Vax level I guess I should have gone. I am not quite certain what you want to say with the bolded part. We have a pretty good theory of gravity that explains the motions of stellar objects very well. However, in some cases (rotation speeds of galaxies are not what they should be according to the model), it does not. Now, you have to either introduce a concept that allows the working theory to still work under those circumstances, or you have to come up with a new theory that explains both the already known motions AND the weirdness in those cases. The current working theory is that there is massive stuff that we can't observe. This is not an iron-clad thing that we are sure exists, but something that would explain what we observe. Now comes the scientific process. We try to either find that stuff and prove that it exists in some other way, OR we try to find a new theory of gravitation that also explains those effects. Both are things that people try. At some point, we will either have a new theory of gravity, proof that dark matter exists, or proof that it does not exists and that we need a new theory. We are currently in the phase where that is getting investigated. I am not sure how you can be so ironclad about your opinion that dark matter is not a real thing when it is very much a thing that is debated currently. Dark energy is even weirder, but basically the problem is the same. We have a model that explains most of what we observe, but there are some factors that are off. Dark energy is a concept that is proposed to fix that. Once again, we are in the realm of "currently in development" science. The current theory does not have to be correct, but it also does not have to be incorrect, and currently it is the best theory we have. People are trying to come up with better theories, or try to figure out what that dark energy actually is. You seem to fail to realize that there is a difference in science that is currently ongoing, and science that has been settled for a long period of time.
You seem to fail to realize that there is a difference in science between a working theory and a proven theory. Dark matter and dark energy are not observe nor are they describing anything real. They're just there to fill in the gaps and explain what we still don't know. It's like the god particle. We didn't know much about it but we're looking for it so we gave it a name. That doesn't mean you can prove anything with it yet that just means that it's the edge of what we know. I know what dark matter and dark energy is you don't need to keep repeating yourself.
If it were a thing I'm sure someone would put their name on it like Higgs boson.
|
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 think there is a legitimate concern with defamation suits. I also think there is a legitimate concern with journalists being absolute dicks.
The UK's defamation laws pre-2014 were an example of absurd, and threatened the freedom of speech (and particularly, press). I'm not knowledgeable enough on the exact state of libel law in the US, but haven't heard of any real excess, so it's probably mostly okay? Do you have any concrete examples to show otherwise?
Was there something really wrong with gawker getting sued into bankrupcy? I'm not sure about Trump's libel suits, but aren't most instantly thrown out? Not sure what else?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
So, for everyone here, I have a question, in poll form, about what you think of Trump so far.
+ Show Spoiler +Poll: How does a Trump presidency compare to what you expected?It's worse than expected. (19) 48% I expected about the same as we have. (16) 40% It's better than expected. (5) 13% 40 total votes Your vote: How does a Trump presidency compare to what you expected? (Vote): It's better than expected.
(Vote): I expected about the same as we have.
(Vote): It's worse than expected.
|
On February 08 2017 03:35 Acrofales wrote:
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".
That's just a matter of legal strategy - if you can win cleanly on procedural grounds, try that first before bothering with disputed facts.
------
On February 08 2017 03:20 Acrofales wrote:
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.
Regarding (1)
There's certainly room for debate in the underlying epistemology. For example:
* Data scientists (professionals who make predictive computer models) typically hold their models to a higher level of rigor than the climate models are held to. This leads to claims that the climate models are of insufficient quality to definitively predict warming.
* Data integrity is also a concern - the effects we're looking for are subtle, our temperature record is full of holes, and we already know about small systematic biases that are roughly as large as the detected warming trend. It's not implausible on its face that there are further data problems that would change the conclusion, or that known ones might be incorrectly accounted for. Therefore, criticisms like Bates' need to be taken seriously.
* The process for selecting which scenarios to model might itself be biased. So an average of a bunch of published model runs would have very different results from the average of models that should have been run but weren't.
Regarding (2)
You're placing too much burden of proof on the model-skeptics relative to the modellers, especially given the diversity of models. Individual models can be shown definitively wrong, and many old ones have by virtue of predicting more warming in the last decade than has happened, or by predicting warming in the wrong places. But there are always more models.
This issue in particular is why the 'pausebuster' paper was significant - it represented an attempt to reconcile the temperature record with models' predictions.
Regarding (3), I think nothing needs to be said.
|
On February 08 2017 03:48 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 03:42 Danglars wrote: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.
I'll just point you to further reading on the topic. It's just so egregious on its face that it should never have been allowed to proceed given the attendant chilling effect on free speech. The DC judge's actions are pretty ridiculous too, confusing actions by co-defendants to other people (here as elsewhere, slow pace of proceeding, etc. That's one side, of course read both sides.
|
On February 08 2017 04:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 03:48 Logo wrote:On February 08 2017 03:42 Danglars wrote: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. I'll just point you to further reading on the topic. It's just so egregious on its face that it should never have been allowed to proceed given the attendant chilling effect on free speech. The DC judge's actions are pretty ridiculous too, confusing actions by co-defendants to other people ( here as elsewhere, slow pace of proceeding, etc. That's one side, of course read both sides.
I'll carefully read this highly unbiased article about the topic thank you.
|
On February 08 2017 03:54 Logo wrote: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).
I do understand the differences. For most jurisdictions charter schools were long run as specialty schools (like a charter culinary high school, that my Grandpa worked at in Chicago). The modern charter school movement is based on this same concept, but is a massive expansion of it that basically says:
A) Neighborhood schools are failing because they concentrate the hardest to educate students together and also facilitate the behavior of social groups that go bad to pour directly into the surrounding community.
B) Neighborhood schools are also failing because there are too many entrenched interests in the neighborhood schools to change them from the inside, so an outside alternative is better.
C) Parents and students are better off if they get to pick the school they go to instead of being property of whatever geographic school they are in.
Now, I don't think charter schools will work (other than possibly reducing costs in some high-cost areas) because I went to a pretty diverse public school (geographic) and saw first hand what makes the difference, almost all of it depends on what happens before you walk through the doors. A kid is like a lasagna and the school is the oven. Sure its nice to have a fancy oven, but if the lasagna was made with ketchup for sauce...not gonna be that good.
|
On February 08 2017 03:50 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 03:27 eviltomahawk wrote: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.
I get your point but what does that say about the institution and role of congress to properly vet appointments to government office. She may end up doing little to no harm but the fact that she was confirmed through this process shows that it's nearly meaningless. The Congress basically just went through a vetting process and confirmed the 'kid with a water pistol'. It's shameful.
I think it should be clear without elaboration that 'these experts had lukewarm results, so let's just let anyone try next' is a foolish position.
|
Do we have anyone here on TL who thinks Betsy Devos being confirmed is a good thing?
|
On February 08 2017 04:18 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 04:11 Danglars wrote:On February 08 2017 03:48 Logo wrote:On February 08 2017 03:42 Danglars wrote: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. I'll just point you to further reading on the topic. It's just so egregious on its face that it should never have been allowed to proceed given the attendant chilling effect on free speech. The DC judge's actions are pretty ridiculous too, confusing actions by co-defendants to other people ( here as elsewhere, slow pace of proceeding, etc. That's one side, of course read both sides. I'll carefully read this highly unbiased article about the topic thank you.
Lol he is the defendant, and quotes other scientists calling bullshit on Mann's claims and actions. I trust you can absorb the primary source material knowing the author's arguments cannot rely on his personal witness (He's mean vs He's wrong because...). I've seen too much discounting on there existing a powerful other side.
|
On February 08 2017 04:00 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 02:54 Simberto wrote:On February 08 2017 02:34 Sermokala wrote:On February 08 2017 00:39 Simberto wrote:On February 08 2017 00:13 Sermokala wrote:On February 08 2017 00:06 Velr wrote:On February 07 2017 23:57 Sermokala wrote:
I'd think creationists would be given more credibility scientifically then deniers. Thats because "creationism" is a very creative field, its actually some form of literature/philosophy/fiction :p. You don't "disregard" Facts, you just create new ones up that work "together" with the actual Facts. Its "extra-special-creative-Facts" on top of "Facts". Denial is just "alternative Facts". But still you can end up with a genuine shrug from someone who doesn't agree with creationists when you are both on the same page of facts. The big bang and dark matter are as faith based explination as saying a mythical god caused it and does it. That is because dark matter and the big bang are not "done science". You can use telescopes to look pretty far into the past, but once you get to about 13.3 billions of years ago, the universe is so full of stuff that you can't actually look through it anymore, so you can't look further back than that. You can, however, use the data you have from the points in time that you can see, and especially redshift data, to make a model that fits the stuff we can observe. And that model leads to a big bang. Dark matter and Dark energy are similarly weird concepts that are used to make the things we observe fit to the laws of nature that we already know. Galaxies rotate in a way that can only be explained if there is a lot of matter that we can not observe. We don't know what that stuff is, but at this point, either our understanding of gravity is a bit off or there is stuff we can't see in space. A lot of that stuff. Both can be correct, but since no one has come up with a better theory of gravity that explains all the stuff we currently know, we now work of the assumption that there is this nebulous dark matter, and try to figure out what that stuff actually is. Dark energy is something that is necessary to explain why the universe expands in the way we can observe it expanding. We have even less of an idea about it than about dark matter, but once again we either have dark energy, or something is fundamentally wrong with our understanding of how the expansion of space itself works. Since so far noone has had a better theory about how space expands, that explains both the stuff we know AND the effects currently attributed to dark energy, we try to figure out what that dark energy could be. But these things are all far from scientific fact, and thus they don't really require faith. In fact, faith is counterproductive. They represent problems that we are in the process of trying to figure out. We have models that explain the things that we can observe. Of course you can always explain everything with "god does it because god wants to do it". But that is not a very productive point of view, as there is no additional knowledge to be gained from it, nor can predictions be made using it. It is a completely nonfalsifiable theory, and thus we don't actually gain anything from it. Meanwhile, we gain a lot from trying to figure out what dark matter is, or if there is none, what else has the effect of galaxies not rotating in a way that is consistent to there only being the visible matter. Your using a ton of words that don't amount to much. Dark matter and dark energy are not real things. They're just there beacuse it's the only way to make the models work but that's where they end. Adding made up concepts doesn't allow you to backtrack and come up with a new theory now that the model works. I don't see how beliving is non productive unless you apply that there is no need to figure out the how and the search for the how is compatible with both sides. This is the Crux of my argument beacuse there is enough of a leap between faith in a creator and the belief in the opposite. There is an arguable gap in our current science that doesn't exist in global warming. I'm not interested in a faith conversation but that danglars can defend or argue for global warming deniers is worse then creationism debaters. Beacuse it's anti Vax level I guess I should have gone. I am not quite certain what you want to say with the bolded part. We have a pretty good theory of gravity that explains the motions of stellar objects very well. However, in some cases (rotation speeds of galaxies are not what they should be according to the model), it does not. Now, you have to either introduce a concept that allows the working theory to still work under those circumstances, or you have to come up with a new theory that explains both the already known motions AND the weirdness in those cases. The current working theory is that there is massive stuff that we can't observe. This is not an iron-clad thing that we are sure exists, but something that would explain what we observe. Now comes the scientific process. We try to either find that stuff and prove that it exists in some other way, OR we try to find a new theory of gravitation that also explains those effects. Both are things that people try. At some point, we will either have a new theory of gravity, proof that dark matter exists, or proof that it does not exists and that we need a new theory. We are currently in the phase where that is getting investigated. I am not sure how you can be so ironclad about your opinion that dark matter is not a real thing when it is very much a thing that is debated currently. Dark energy is even weirder, but basically the problem is the same. We have a model that explains most of what we observe, but there are some factors that are off. Dark energy is a concept that is proposed to fix that. Once again, we are in the realm of "currently in development" science. The current theory does not have to be correct, but it also does not have to be incorrect, and currently it is the best theory we have. People are trying to come up with better theories, or try to figure out what that dark energy actually is. You seem to fail to realize that there is a difference in science that is currently ongoing, and science that has been settled for a long period of time. You seem to fail to realize that there is a difference in science between a working theory and a proven theory. Dark matter and dark energy are not observe nor are they describing anything real. They're just there to fill in the gaps and explain what we still don't know. It's like the god particle. We didn't know much about it but we're looking for it so we gave it a name. That doesn't mean you can prove anything with it yet that just means that it's the edge of what we know. I know what dark matter and dark energy is you don't need to keep repeating yourself.
That is exactly what i just wrote. But it is not what you previously wrote. Something being a working theory does not mean that it is "not a real thing". How you have come from what i wrote, where i pretty much precisely described the difference between a working theory and a proven theory, to the idea that i don't understand that difference, is beyond me.
I am not going to start a discussion with you on the higgs boson, despite the fact that i strongly dislike just about everything you just wrote about it.
|
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.
DeVos gave hundreds of millions of dollars to Republicans. Under-reported story.
On February 08 2017 04:22 Mohdoo wrote:
Do we have anyone here on TL who thinks Betsy Devos being confirmed is a good thing?
I too would like to hear such an argument.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 08 2017 04:22 Mohdoo wrote:
Do we have anyone here on TL who thinks Betsy Devos being confirmed is a good thing?
meh. the teachers union must die crowd is in charge either way.
none of these confirmations are significant in any way.
|
On February 08 2017 04:19 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 03:50 cLutZ wrote:On February 08 2017 03:27 eviltomahawk wrote: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. I get your point but what does that say about the institution and role of congress to properly vet appointments to government office. She may end up doing little to no harm but the fact that she was confirmed through this process shows that it's nearly meaningless. The Congress basically just went through a vetting process and confirmed the 'kid with a water pistol'. It's shameful. I think it should be clear without elaboration that 'these experts had lukewarm results, so let's just let anyone try next' is a foolish position.
Its an unconstitutional and ineffectual cabinet department. My position is not "lets try anyone next" its "this position should not be filled, and if its filled with someone who treats it like an appointment to Ambassador to Spain does, thats cool too."
Its not even a "do no harm" problem, because its already doing harm. If Devos's alleged insanity is enough to get Democrats to reconsider the merits of centralized control and funding for local schools, that is a positive good.
On February 08 2017 04:22 Mohdoo wrote:
Do we have anyone here on TL who thinks Betsy Devos being confirmed is a good thing?
I think it is above-average. Her biggest flaw is I suspect she thinks that she knows how to implement policies from the federal level, which is not possible.
|
On February 08 2017 04:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 04:18 Logo wrote:On February 08 2017 04:11 Danglars wrote:On February 08 2017 03:48 Logo wrote:On February 08 2017 03:42 Danglars wrote: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. I'll just point you to further reading on the topic. It's just so egregious on its face that it should never have been allowed to proceed given the attendant chilling effect on free speech. The DC judge's actions are pretty ridiculous too, confusing actions by co-defendants to other people ( here as elsewhere, slow pace of proceeding, etc. That's one side, of course read both sides. I'll carefully read this highly unbiased article about the topic thank you. Lol he is the defendant, and quotes other scientists calling bullshit on Mann's claims and actions. I trust you can absorb the primary source material knowing the author's arguments cannot rely on his personal witness (He's mean vs He's wrong because...). I've seen too much discounting on there existing a powerful other side.
He can't help but start his defense by calling Mann a fraud and none of his self defense really seems that related to what the suit seems to actually be about. It's a bad source, not because it's from the person being sued, but because that person is a bad source.
For example here's a *much* better source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/22/making-defamation-law-great-again-michael-manns-suit-may-continue/?utm_term=.4ce0390545a0 and you get a sense of both aspects of it:
While a direct accusation of scientific fraud may be actionable — particularly when made against a non-public figure — challenges to scientific conclusions and interpretations of scientific studies are clearly protected by the First Amendment. So are erroneous interpretations of scientific conclusions and — particularly relevant here — criticisms of the conclusions of investigatory bodies.
But it seems like the article could be interpreted as making a direct accusation of scientific fraud?
|
On February 08 2017 04:40 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 04:25 Danglars wrote:On February 08 2017 04:18 Logo wrote:On February 08 2017 04:11 Danglars wrote:On February 08 2017 03:48 Logo wrote:On February 08 2017 03:42 Danglars wrote: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. I'll just point you to further reading on the topic. It's just so egregious on its face that it should never have been allowed to proceed given the attendant chilling effect on free speech. The DC judge's actions are pretty ridiculous too, confusing actions by co-defendants to other people ( here as elsewhere, slow pace of proceeding, etc. That's one side, of course read both sides. I'll carefully read this highly unbiased article about the topic thank you. Lol he is the defendant, and quotes other scientists calling bullshit on Mann's claims and actions. I trust you can absorb the primary source material knowing the author's arguments cannot rely on his personal witness (He's mean vs He's wrong because...). I've seen too much discounting on there existing a powerful other side. He can't help but start his defense by calling Mann a fraud and none of his self defense really seems that related to what the suit seems to actually be about. It's a bad source, not because it's from the person being sued, but because that person is a bad source.
Wow. If that's your basic take-away after reading, I think we're done here. Carry on.
|
@Logo: Did you look at Steyn's sources or just his writing?
|
On February 08 2017 04:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 04:40 Logo wrote:On February 08 2017 04:25 Danglars wrote:On February 08 2017 04:18 Logo wrote:On February 08 2017 04:11 Danglars wrote:On February 08 2017 03:48 Logo wrote:On February 08 2017 03:42 Danglars wrote: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. I'll just point you to further reading on the topic. It's just so egregious on its face that it should never have been allowed to proceed given the attendant chilling effect on free speech. The DC judge's actions are pretty ridiculous too, confusing actions by co-defendants to other people ( here as elsewhere, slow pace of proceeding, etc. That's one side, of course read both sides. I'll carefully read this highly unbiased article about the topic thank you. Lol he is the defendant, and quotes other scientists calling bullshit on Mann's claims and actions. I trust you can absorb the primary source material knowing the author's arguments cannot rely on his personal witness (He's mean vs He's wrong because...). I've seen too much discounting on there existing a powerful other side. He can't help but start his defense by calling Mann a fraud and none of his self defense really seems that related to what the suit seems to actually be about. It's a bad source, not because it's from the person being sued, but because that person is a bad source. Wow. If that's your basic take-away after reading, I think we're done here. Carry on.
You are right that I should trust someone who writes, "I did not seek this battle, and I confess, in my gloomier moments in recent days, that I envy those returning Somali green-card holders denied re-entry to the United States" on an article about a libel suit as a good source.
@Bucky no I went and found my own sources elsewhere so in the search I could find a wider range of sources because it's clear the only sources Steyn would quote would be unabashedly pro-steyn.
|
On February 08 2017 04:36 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 04:19 crms wrote:On February 08 2017 03:50 cLutZ wrote:On February 08 2017 03:27 eviltomahawk wrote: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. I get your point but what does that say about the institution and role of congress to properly vet appointments to government office. She may end up doing little to no harm but the fact that she was confirmed through this process shows that it's nearly meaningless. The Congress basically just went through a vetting process and confirmed the 'kid with a water pistol'. It's shameful. I think it should be clear without elaboration that 'these experts had lukewarm results, so let's just let anyone try next' is a foolish position. Its an unconstitutional and ineffectual cabinet department. My position is not "lets try anyone next" its "this position should not be filled, and if its filled with someone who treats it like an appointment to Ambassador to Spain does, thats cool too." Its not even a "do no harm" problem, because its already doing harm. If Devos's alleged insanity is enough to get Democrats to reconsider the merits of centralized control and funding for local schools, that is a positive good. Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 04:22 Mohdoo wrote:
Do we have anyone here on TL who thinks Betsy Devos being confirmed is a good thing? I think it is above-average. Her biggest flaw is I suspect she thinks that she knows how to implement policies from the federal level, which is not possible.
I would argue that her biggest flaw is that she has zero experience with public schools or education and has an anti- public school agenda, but I agree with you that she probably can't implement things either.
|
clutz -> in what way would the department of education itself be unconstitutional?
I can see how a number of the actions and programs that are under it would be unconstitutional, but a number of them aren't, so I don't see how the dept itself would be unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
