| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
AbuseYouMerc
Netherlands171 Posts
On February 04 2012 00:37 Promises wrote: I cross the highway everyday blindfolded and I never got hit by a car. Win Sad how many people dont even understand the point made in the OP post. But please. continue you're pointless discussion about how bad / good / you dont care / smoking is... I mean... that was the point for YOU after all. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11579 Posts
On February 03 2012 23:37 MrTortoise wrote: Well first off he is a neruoscientist ... they ar a group that operates on a whole class of assumptions that philisophically mean hes inferring all kinds of bullshit from vague correlations. It is one thing to realise which areas of the brain do work during an operation it is quite another to then assume you can infer anything about 'how' things work. Evidence of what i am talking about is that a *lot* of their work has been shown to be false as they didnt ascertain their base levels properly adn most experiements have been based on false assumptions. He is also an atheist which tells me he looked at the arguments for god, decided that you couldnt answer the question (or misunderstood the arguments) and then decided to give a positive answer anyway. When you take those 2 things in conjunction you shuold just stop reading. As for how wood smoke makes me feel? I smoke, but i dont smoke sticks because the smoke is really harsh. So does it suprise me? Not at all. But then again i havent tried smoking a particular blend of wood smoke from a blend of dried woods wrapped in a specific kind of paper that has been refined into something that is enjoyuable to smoke. So once again its a neurologist operating from a set of really bad assumptions to make a point that is not in any way objective or meaningful. You grew up in a house with firewood - that presumably had a chimney. Also most people when i was a kid had the same ... the point is that you therefor don't have a baseline to measure against - because *everyone* is under the same considerations. That would be like only studying people with neurological conditions or assuming that you can somehow map neurons firing to a thought process in something that is doing a million things at once and somehow build a causal picture of how it works (when the process of gathering statistical data specifically precludes anything other than being able to say that this is likely to be causal - but we dont know why - to a 95% chance) Sorry, but your argumentation is really horrible. Firstly, you start of just discrediting the whole of neuroscience as junk science without any proof at all. Being wrong is a part of scientological procedure. You can't start up knowing everything right from the beginning. Thus "They have been wrong in the past" is not an argument to say that a field of science does not work. If you have a complicated system, it takes time to figure stuff out correctly. What you need to understand is that any science is always a work in progress. Next, i don't get why you come to the conclusion that He is also an atheist which tells me he looked at the arguments for god, decided that you couldnt answer the question (or misunderstood the arguments) and then decided to give a positive answer anyway. This is blatently false. Being an atheist means that you look at the arguments for and against the existence of a god, and came to the conclusion that there is none. Now, you might not agree with that conclusion, which is perfectly fine. What you can't do is dogmatically state the answer to a question without any arguments, and then conclude that everyone reaches the same conclusion, and then from there just irrationally chooses a different standpoint. As for how wood smoke makes me feel? I smoke, but i dont smoke sticks because the smoke is really harsh. So does it suprise me? Not at all. But then again i havent tried smoking a particular blend of wood smoke from a blend of dried woods wrapped in a specific kind of paper that has been refined into something that is enjoyuable to smoke. So once again its a neurologist operating from a set of really bad assumptions to make a point that is not in any way objective or meaningful. This does not make any sense at all. I don't even understand what you are getting at with your talk about smoking wood, you are apparently talking about the enjoyment value of wood smoke compared to tobacco smoke, which might be an interesting topic, except that noone else has been talking about that before. Or you are assuming that you can tell if something is dangerous to you just by how it tastes? I don't really know. I heard arsenic tastes pretty sweet. Then you bring up your unfounded grief with neuroscientist up, completely unrelated to anything you were talking about before. Then you bring up anecdotical evidence and come to absurd conclusions from it. So you grew up in a house with a fireplace, and most people in your area did so, too. That is all nice, but from this you come to the conclusion that there is no control group of people who did not grow up in a house with a fireplace, probably since you can't imagine anyone living in any way different from you. Sorry, but this is absurd. I, for example, grew up in a household without a fireplace. The popularity of using wood fires for heating differs widely from area to area. As such, you can easily find similar areas where in one, people are mostly heating with wood, and in an other, people are heating through some different means. You don't even need 100% wood or 100% no wood, only reasonable differences, to come to a valid conclusion. I can't even understand how you would come to that conclusion. Then, you once again bring up your problem with neuroscience. (And aparently empirical data in general, too, i am not sure if i understand that correctly) I think this is a prime example of irrationally and very emotionally defending a position without actual reasoning. First, you trying to discredit the argumentator instead of the argument (Which you btw apparently also completely misunderstood, since the firewood was actually not the main part of that article), then you swing into anecdotical evidence and generalise from there. Actually, at this point i am not even sure anymore if you are not just trying to cleverly satirize that way of arguing that is used all-to often, especially in religious debates. | ||
|
Sabin010
United States1892 Posts
On February 03 2012 20:03 Sated wrote: There's no reason to burn wood in a fire now that we have central heating, gas fires and numerous other ways to heat our homes that are both more efficient and better for the environment. This is another good argument against using wood fires, but it shouldn't really be something that needs debating. Combustion of wood in a fireplace is actually very efficient with 100% of the energy being released as heat. Your argument just isn't true. Look at it like this. If I use gas or oil to heat my home, that gas or oil must be delivered to my home, which burns more gas and oil before I even start using it in a less that 100% energy efficient furnace. If I go in my back yard and cut a tree down, leave it to dry out, bring it inside, and burn it I am not burning any oil to transport the energy source, and since its a combustion reaction its going to be much more efficient than using a furnace. | ||
|
shizna
United Kingdom803 Posts
On February 03 2012 22:02 Promises wrote: No, I believe his point to be that while atheists/rationalists/sceptics are often baffled by the resistance religious people put up to simple scientific facts, there is a same sort of innate resistance in (as it appears almost) all of us on other (perhaps less meaningfull) issues. He (I think) does this to create some understanding for the stance of others in debates, thus aiming to make the debates better and easyer, which I'd say is a noble cause. And if nothing else, for me at least it was interesting to notice the resistance I immediatly had when reading the article. The statement: "Science is cold and depressing" is one that flows out of the bad PR science has gotten when the new-age scene had to make a niche for themselves and couldnt do it based on any facts, evidence or science. Here's a brilliant translation of my thoughts on the matter: Edit: To the poster above me: please read my post carefully. I wasn't expressing my mind-blowing amazement at the fact wood-smoke's bad, but at the reaction I had to it, which is also what the main article's point is. i enjoyed that video, it was very well done and i agree with it. but that does not change the fact that science is cold and depressing. we take happiness for granted in our lives, which makes the depressing moments hurt even more. so science, what do you say when my mother dies or gets cancer? = too bad. okay, well science, what is the meaning of life? = to reproduce. ermm that's it? well do we actually have any worth in the universe? = no, we are totally insignificant. the entire planet is insignificant in terms of the universe. therefore, imo the most important thing is the HERE and NOW. enjoy your freaking life. | ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
It was the entire point of his article. He's preaching against that which he is doing. Evangelizing religion. | ||
|
GrimmJ
Canada131 Posts
| ||
|
Mr Showtime
United States1353 Posts
| ||
|
Legion710
Canada423 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11579 Posts
On February 04 2012 00:46 Sabin010 wrote: Combustion of wood in a fireplace is actually very efficient with 100% of the energy being released as heat. Your argument just isn't true. Look at it like this. If I use gas or oil to heat my home, that gas or oil must be delivered to my home, which burns more gas and oil before I even start using it in a less that 100% energy efficient furnace. If I go in my back yard and cut a tree down, leave it to dry out, bring it inside, and burn it I am not burning any oil to transport the energy source, and since its a combustion reaction its going to be much more efficient than using a furnace. But what you are interested in is not how much of the energy is transformed into heat, but how much is transformed into heat in your house, and even then you probably want different levels of heat at different places of that house. Burning wood in a stove will lose some energy, because with the smoke that travels out of the chimney, there will also be some heat. Without any actual knowledge about woodstoves, i would actually assume that more of the energy leaves the house through the chimney than the amount that stays inside. Also, you have basically one warm spot with the oven, and that heat needs to spread through the house naturally, So you only have a choice between heating so much that everything is warm, or heating the room the stove is in. With central heating you can specifically heat exactly only the rooms you want to be warm. Also, efficiency is not really relevant in a heat source. What is relevant is the cost/result, both monetary and enviromentally, probably weighted differently depending on your personal position. If i have a heat source that is absurdly cheap, not dangerous in any way, and not threatening to the enviroment, it would be completely irrelevant if you lose 95% of the energy in question if the result is still cheaper then the alternatives. | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On February 04 2012 00:50 danl9rm wrote: It was the entire point of his article. He's preaching against that which he is doing. Evangelizing religion. I don't get it. Stop trolling and keep on topic. | ||
|
Promises
Netherlands1821 Posts
On February 04 2012 00:46 shizna wrote: i enjoyed that video, it was very well done and i agree with it. but that does not change the fact that science is cold and depressing. we take happiness for granted in our lives, which makes the depressing moments hurt even more. so science, what do you say when my mother dies or gets cancer? = too bad. okay, well science, what is the meaning of life? = to reproduce. ermm that's it? well do we actually have any worth in the universe? = no, we are totally insignificant. the entire planet is insignificant in terms of the universe. therefore, imo the most important thing is the HERE and NOW. enjoy your freaking life. Science shows us how this incredibly complex and beautifull world came to what it is today trough various systems and processes, little puzzles that create beautifull exquisite things out of seemingly random trial and error, it shows us how humans evolved to have moments of love, compassion and altruism, it shows us the wonders of the universe, and as you say; it teaches us that the chance we have trough living is so short that we have to enjoy our short time in this beautifull complex world ^^ Doesn't seem so cold to me? Bad things happen, people die and get sick, and indeed, that is too bad. I prefer "too bad" to "someone intended for you to suffer now" personally, and the meaning of life is otherwise what? to please god? why? to go to heaven? why? Because it's pleasant? So is having fun now, same answer, just because it'll end doesnt mean it's not worth doing it. But we're sidetracking here =) | ||
|
shizna
United Kingdom803 Posts
On February 04 2012 01:03 Promises wrote: Science shows us how this incredibly complex and beautifull world came to what it is today trough various systems and processes, little puzzles that create beautifull exquisite things out of seemingly random trial and error, it shows us how humans evolved to have moments of love, compassion and altruism, it shows us the wonders of the universe, and as you say; it teaches us that the chance we have trough living is so short that we have to enjoy our short time in this beautifull complex world ^^ Doesn't seem so cold to me? Bad things happen, people die and get sick, and indeed, that is too bad. I prefer "too bad" to "someone intended for you to suffer now" personally, and the meaning of life is otherwise what? to please god? why? to go to heaven? why? Because it's pleasant? So is having fun now, same answer, just because it'll end doesnt mean it's not worth doing it. But we're sidetracking here =) err i think you completely missed my point... the meaning of life is exactly what science says... but my point is that the meaning of life is completely irrelevant unless you enjoy yourself. otherwise you're saying that a man who was sad for his entire life and managed to reproduce, then he succeeded... that's just bs. imagine for a moment that you're terminally ill, dying in a month and looking back on your life. if you had a sad life then that would make you feel extremely bad, full of regret, like you wasted not only your own life but possibly also didn't spread enough happiness to other people. if you'd lived a happy life then you'd be content, you wouldn't feel regret that you weren't more sad or bored in life. to have a truely successful and fulfilled life you have to enjoy yourself. if blindly spouting irrelevant scientific facts makes you happy, then do it... if you want to think of yourself as insignificant, then please give me all of your money and all of your belongings. it will make me happy at least. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18074 Posts
On February 04 2012 01:13 shizna wrote: err i think you completely missed my point... the meaning of life is exactly what science says... but my point is that the meaning of life is completely irrelevant unless you enjoy yourself. otherwise you're saying that a man who was sad for his entire life and managed to reproduce, then he succeeded... that's just bs. to have a truely successful and fulfilled life you have to enjoy yourself. if blindly spouting irrelevant scientific facts makes you happy, then do it... Wheee!!!! Did you know that sound travels fifteen times faster through steel than through air? | ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
On February 04 2012 00:58 Euronyme wrote: I don't get it. Stop trolling and keep on topic. Man, I hope you were being sarcastic. | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
I have to admit I have trouble believing that fires could be so bad. But its more so due to skepticism rather than irrational intransigence; I'm actually not that sure whether Sam Harris is making things out to be worse than they really are. I can only read the abstracts of the articles he links to, but they just summarize how the paper is divided, not the conclusions. I can't believe all of this, and decide never to spend time next to a campfire ever again based on one blog. I wonder whether campfires are equally bad as fireplaces at home. If most of the smoke is escaping, and its done once in a while, would he want that banned too? It seems kind of like drinking - alcohol is surely a toxin, but in moderation its ok. Maybe I'll go search for more info on this. | ||
|
arChieSC2
Spain162 Posts
| ||
|
GohgamX
Canada1096 Posts
On February 03 2012 23:28 bonifaceviii wrote: True that. My condo is smack-dab between a railway corridor and an expressway. I ain't afraid of no smoke. I aint afraid of no smoke. I'm not hitting the smoke from my camp fires anyway... This won't deter me from having fires in a forest, at the lake or anywhere else. There something special about sitting around a fire whether its by yourself thinking or talking with friends. | ||
|
Emnjay808
United States10660 Posts
Sitting, sugar, and smoke are bad for you. Dear god, what have I been learning all these years?!!! Ill quit the habit of drinking 10 cans of soda, sitting 12 hours a day, and inhaling wood smoke now. | ||
|
Switchy
343 Posts
| ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
On February 04 2012 01:29 radscorpion9 wrote: We shouldn't confuse skepticism with something like religious resistance! In addition, the blog author thinks that it's because we're being irrational that we still allow fireplaces indoors. It's perfectly rational to perform a cost-benefit analysis, both on a personal level and on a social level, weighing the dangers of smoke with the benefit of having a cool glowy thing in your house. People know how dangerous smoke inhalation is, but they also know that fireplaces are regulated to mitigate this danger. The statistic in the article about how many people die in improperly ventilated third world shacks of smoke inhalation is very much a red herring; maybe if he presented a statistic relating to smoke deaths (or even lung cancer statistics) from fireplaces that are up to code with current regulation it would impress me more. Basically what I'm trying to say here is that if there's enough of a scientific consensus that fireplaces should be banned, they probably will be. It happened with asbestos, after all. | ||
| ||
BSL Team Wars
Grand Finals
Team Bonyth vs Team Dewalt
Dewalt vs kogeT
JDConan vs Tarson
RaNgeD vs DragOn
StRyKeR vs Bonyth
Aeternum vs Hejek
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games FrodaN5660 Grubby2223 Mlord719 B2W.Neo681 KnowMe301 ToD222 mouzStarbuck182 Sick121 UpATreeSC76 Trikslyr46 rGuardiaN44 JuggernautJason16 |
|
Replay Cast
Map Test Tournament
PiGosaur Monday
Map Test Tournament
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
Map Test Tournament
Map Test Tournament
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
