|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 16 2016 08:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 05:20 oneofthem wrote:
COPERNICUS2 How long does it take for the Earth to go around the Sun? [one day, one month, one year]
45% What the actual fuck? How did 55% of people get this wrong? Btw balisaurias, the barycentre of Sun-Earth is much closer to the Sun, so it can be somewhat argued that the Earth rotates around the Sun in common non scientific parlance.
that actually overstates the 'knowledge' of the sample lol since they only asked copernicus2 if the respondent got copernicus1 correct.
|
On March 16 2016 08:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 05:20 oneofthem wrote:
COPERNICUS2 How long does it take for the Earth to go around the Sun? [one day, one month, one year]
45% What the actual fuck? How did 55% of people get this wrong? Btw balisaurias, the barycentre of Sun-Earth is much closer to the Sun, so it can be somewhat argued that the Earth rotates around the Sun in common non scientific parlance.
I'm assuming most people didn't read it carefully and went "derp 1 day", saw the answer and facepalmed.
|
I'd like to hope the "accidental" errors would account for no more than 5%, but at the same time if I was disdainfully clicking through that thing on a webpage there's a good chance I would have got it wrong myself.
And yes I'm aware that the orbit question could technically be answered the other way, but if you have enough physics to know that you should have enough common sense to know what answer they want.
|
On March 16 2016 08:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 00:21 xM(Z wrote:On March 16 2016 00:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I just have an issue with
1) that identifying with groups and their cultural ideas is a sophisticated concept
2) that doing so is a reasoning/scientific way to think
3) that xM(Z only response is to quote the same article over and over because he thinks we are intimidated by a few long words. Quoting A and saying it shows B. you're stuck on the previous page - semantics over the definition of confirmation bias(which i said it's based mainly on faith/beliefs/(non-scientific)hypotheses. present another argument or let it go. This is our actual conversation: + Show Spoiler +On March 15 2016 05:56 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 05:44 AngryMag wrote:On March 15 2016 05:32 xM(Z wrote:dude, what you suffer of is this: identity-protective cognition(quote from a .pdf) The “cultural cognition thesis” is a relatively new approach to science communication (e.g., see Kahan, 2010, 2012, 2015; Kahan, Jenkins-Smith, & Braman, 2011; Kahan et al., 2012). Theoretically, the approach can be seen as a conceptual marriage between the “cultural theory of risk” (Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982) and the psychometric paradigm (Slovic, 2000). Broadly, the theory aims to explain why groups with different “cultural outlooks” tend to disagree about important societal issues. In particular, the cultural cognition thesis argues that public disagreement over key societal risks (e.g., climate change, nuclear power) arises not because people fail to understand the science or lack relevant information, but rather as a result of the fact that “people endorse whichever position reinforces their connection to others with whom they share important ties” (Kahan, 2010, p. 296). This latter notion is central to much of the cultural cognition thesis and is generally referred to as a specific form of motivated reasoning, namely, “identity-protective cognition” (Kahan, 2012). Because espousing beliefs that are not congruent with the dominant sentiment in one’s group could threaten one’s position or status within the group, people may be motivated to “protect” their cultural identities. In fact, the cultural cognition thesis predicts that identity-protective reasoning is a mechanism that people unconsciously employ to assimilate (risk) information. In other words, people are expected to process information in a motivated way, that is, consistent with their cultural worldviews (Kahan, 2012). A key prediction that flows from this theory is that when people are exposed to (new) scientific information, “culturally” biased cognition will merely reinforce existing predispositions and cause groups with opposing values to become even more polarized on the respective issue (Kahan, 2010, 2012). (tldr /b so stop calling people names). if more and more people connect with the likes of Afd, means there's a real problem somewhere. Sounds like a slightly more refined confirmation bias. confirmation bias is to identity-protective cognition what neanderthal is to sapiens.  On March 15 2016 06:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
No, its pretty much the same thing. Only difference is that one is individual, and the other is social. On March 15 2016 06:15 xM(Z wrote:
one implies blind faith/mob mentality, the other accounts for reasoning/science. On March 15 2016 06:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Which one is which? They are both forms of unreasoning. Why are you saying I am arguing over something I am in fact not arguing against? Nowhere am I discussing semantics, confimation bias or otherwise. Either you are saying that your "identity-protective cognition" is blind faith/mob mentality or it is reasoning/science. Which one is it? Why can't you answer? It's because you know that you are wrong and that identity-protective cognition has nothing to do with reasoning/science. Why are your answers just random quotes which has nothing to do with any discussion. Your replies are so irrelevent to my replies it is just increasingly bizarre. It's as if you don't understand that a response is supposed to be related to a previous comment.
i use the <topic being discussed/argued upon> to make the distinction between those two.
when people argue whether or not the lights in the sky are alien fireflies or human souls = confirmation bias.
when people argue whether or not the lights in the sky are celestial bodies who reflect light or celestial bodies who generate light = IPC.
you seem to only care about the fact that in the end an opinion is formed then conclude its based on <X> group affiliation. you skip over the part that in one case, you need to process some factual knowledge first.
Edit: there is a fair argument to be had here about the degree of factual knowledge required to meet some criteria but it's inconsequential to my distinction above.
Edit1: to me, a discussion on cultural theory of risk(on which that study is also based) would be more interesting than the factual knowledge questionnaires.
whether or not one agrees with the knowledge one has vs the knowledge required of one to meet a criteria, the fact that people are overall more knowledgeable about global warming will always be valid thus conclusions on opinions could be drawn based only on the comparison between then and now.
|
Classic example of xM)Z quoting X to say Y.
Revealing that you have no understanding of the very article you have repeatedly quoted isn't as great an argument as you think it is.
And I'm ignoring the problem with that study's poor methodology.
|
your argument with me was about the definition of/meaning of/nuance of confirmation bias vs IPC; it had nothing to do with the Yale article(my first quote on IPC, was from a .pdf(A Conceptual Critique of the Cultural Cognition Thesis) in which a PhD dude from Princeton was critiquing research/studies using cultural outlook, cognitive bias, understanding risk factors, ICT/SCT and so on, buzz words).
i asked you couple times that if you have a different argument, Yale article related, to just make it and will see how it goes (or just piggyback on oneofthose argument).
if you don't like Yale researchers using convoluted/twisted terms in their articles, when they could've just used confirmation bias(for your sake), then send them your rant. i told you how i view those notions.
(my later edits in the previous post were about the issue in general and were not aimed at you).
|
|
|
Because most carbon policy is virtue signaling (think the South Park episode where they buy Priuses and smell thier own farts), and/or a ruse for increased government control of the market. The US, a non signatory to most CC treaties and having nearly no climate policy has outpaced most Kyoto countries, and the only effective and efficient policy: a global per ton flat tax consigns billions to poverty for the foreseeable future (on top of that it wouldn't get support from major players in the BRICs for growth reasons, and in the 1st world because they prefer cap-and-trade and other rent seeking solutions).
|
PARIS, March 18 (Reuters) - A trace of DNA from Salah Abdeslam, one of the attackers from the November Paris killings who is on the run, has been found in the apartment raided by Belgian police this week, French media reported on Friday.
The reports appeared on the website of magazine L’Obs and on the news channel BFMTV.
The interior ministry said it had no information on the subject. An official at the Paris prosecutor’s office was not immediately avaialable for comment. The central prosecutor’s office in Brussels was not available for comment.
Source
|
SO happy they got that motherfucker!
Now I would simply collect all the video evidence that shows the people living there who protested against his arrest. You know what's next...
|
Norway28875 Posts
There are achievable goals and not achievable goals. Massive forced vegetarianism is most certainly not achievable. Then there's the idea that global warming happens on a scale, it's not a binary 'warmer' or 'not warmer'; either way it's going to get warmer but we need to try to make the increase as small as we can - even if all our combined efforts to combine climate change results in global average temperatures rising by 1.6 instead of 2 degrees over the next 50 years then that might be the difference between living areas inhabited by 120 and 200 million (im just throwing out numbers here, not even guesstimations, it's just to illustrate the line of thinking) becoming uninhabitable.
Agreed that the whole super eco fridges thing is silly though, but that's mostly a lot of people don't actually discard their old fridge when they get a new super eco one - they just move the old one to the basement and then they have two fridges. lol.
|
Low energy using fridges are amazing. Also, they are basically free. If your fridge is 10 years old, you can easily save the amount of money it costs to get a new one in less than 1-2 years in reduced energy costs.
Same with riding a bicycle to work. It is not about the enviroment, it is about the fact that it is a) a lot cheaper and b) a lot more healthy. And depending on where you live, it could also be a lot more practical, because you don't have to find a parking spot or deal with car jams.
I am also not certain if i want to actually look at a site called "cowspiracy", and i am a vegetarian.
I can already see a big problem with comparisons between cows and transportation, though. Cows usually produce green house gases from recently grown plants, which take green house gases out of the atmosphere, so depending on what the actual equations look like, even a high emission could be a net zero if the same amount of green house gases gets taken out of the atmosphere by the plants that are grown to feed the cows.
Transportation on the other hand usually uses fossile fuels, which means that stuff that was safely locked away below the surface gets burned and turned into green house gases, so every bit of gas that you produce is a net addition to the stuff in the atmosphere.
|
i got suckered in by the whole earths magnetic field/the flipping of earths magnetic field shenanigans here(it was the coming of the glacial age which was overdue, before that). saw a 1h30min documentary on it and wasn't bothered to look for a rebuttal on it.
|
ON MARCH 17th, as The Economist went to press, Angela Merkel was on her way to Brussels for a summit that may define her legacy as German chancellor. At her initiative, the 28 member states of the European Union were to agree to a controversial deal with Turkey that Mrs Merkel had earlier this month sold as a potential “breakthrough” in the refugee crisis. But many of her EU counterparts demurred. Even if a compromise materialises, Mrs Merkel currently looks more isolated than any German chancellor since the 1950s.
This continues a slide in Mrs Merkel’s power. Only last summer, she was first among equals in the EU, having managed the euro crisis and a showdown with Russia in Ukraine. But on September 4th she opened Germany’s borders to refugees streaming into Europe, setting off conflicts with Hungary and other eastern countries. At first she had Austria on her side. But in January its chancellor, Werner Faymann, turned into an opponent, as he led a group of Balkan countries to close their borders.
Mrs Merkel’s isolation has not gone unnoticed in Germany. Horst Seehofer, the premier of Bavaria and leader of the Christian Social Union (CSU), nominally the sister party of Mrs Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), has been attacking her for months. He demands a fixed upper limit on refugees, as Austria has imposed. Following regional elections on March 13th in which the Christian Democrats fared badly, Mr Seehofer warned of an “existential” threat to the Union parties.
His worry is that Union supporters keep drifting to the Alternative for Germany (AfD), a right-wing party founded in 2013. On March 13th it came second behind the CDU in Saxony-Anhalt, with 24%. Compared with other countries with populist parties, however, that is not unusual. “I do not see the AfD as an existential problem for the CDU, but I do see it as a problem,” Mrs Merkel said. Defiantly, she then redoubled her commitment to a “European” solution to the crisis, rather than “national” one, involving border closures.
The lessons of the elections are indeed ambiguous, for they show Mrs Merkel to be less vulnerable than it appears to observers abroad. The winners in the two western states, Baden-Württemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate, were the Greens and the Social Democrats, respectively. Their candidates supported Mrs Merkel’s stance on refugees and were rewarded for it. The Christian Democrats failed mainly because their candidates had tried to distance themselves from her line. “The majority of voters supported Merkel’s refugee policy,” says Gero Neugebauer, a political scientist at Free University Berlin.
Moreover there exists no plausible scenario in which Mrs Merkel could be toppled. The opposition parties in the federal parliament have only 20% of seats and, in any event, agree with Mrs Merkel on refugees. The Social Democrats, her coalition partners, are cantankerous but also side with her. Moreover, they know that ousting Mrs Merkel would lead to new elections, which they do not want. They would lose seats (in two of the three elections on March 13th they received a drubbing). And the AfD would almost certainly enter the federal parliament, a situation which they want to avoid.
Source
|
On March 19 2016 09:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:There are achievable goals and not achievable goals. Massive forced vegetarianism is most certainly not achievable. Then there's the idea that global warming happens on a scale, it's not a binary 'warmer' or 'not warmer'; either way it's going to get warmer but we need to try to make the increase as small as we can - even if all our combined efforts to combine climate change results in global average temperatures rising by 1.6 instead of 2 degrees over the next 50 years then that might be the difference between living areas inhabited by 120 and 200 million (im just throwing out numbers here, not even guesstimations, it's just to illustrate the line of thinking) becoming uninhabitable. Agreed that the whole super eco fridges thing is silly though, but that's mostly a lot of people don't actually discard their old fridge when they get a new super eco one - they just move the old one to the basement and then they have two fridges. lol.
To add to this... There are tons of other, non climate influencing, emissions that are bad for the enviroment and health of people. Reduing that is NEVER bad.
I'm far from a green hippie, but i don't see in what world it is bad to use (and support) more efficient or emission free "technologies"(like bike-technology  .
Bikes are actually a great example. Depending on your situation you barely lose any traveling time, you do something for your health, you save money and on top of all that it is, aside from the production, emission free. Its win/win/win, that doesn't mean you should force people to use a bike, but why wouldn't you aid/support/help people that commute mainly by bike?
Btw: I don't even own a bycicle :D
|
According to this the suicide bombers were held in jail before the bombing, why is no journal reporting it?
Two brothers Khalid and Ibrahim El Bakraoui were reportedly detained according to the media when one of the brothers showed up at a hospital with a broken leg. The other brother was found hiding in a house police were searching. The two brothers were known to have links to violent crime in the Brussels area.
edit:bonus
|
PARIS (AP) — The Islamic State group has trained at least 400 fighters to target Europe in deadly waves of attacks, deploying interlocking terror cells like the ones that struck Brussels and Paris with orders to choose the time, place and method for maximum carnage, officials have told The Associated Press.
The network of agile and semiautonomous cells shows the reach of the extremist group in Europe even as it loses ground in Syria and Iraq. The officials, including European and Iraqi intelligence officials and a French lawmaker who follows the jihadi networks, described camps in Syria, Iraq and possibly the former Soviet bloc where attackers are trained to attack the West. Before being killed in a police raid, the ringleader of the Nov. 13 Paris attacks claimed he had entered Europe in a multinational group of 90 fighters, who scattered "more or less everywhere."
But the biggest break yet in the Paris attacks investigation — the arrest on Friday of fugitive Salah Abdeslam— did not thwart the multipronged attack just four days later on the Belgian capital's airport and metro that left 31 people dead and an estimated 270 wounded. Three suicide bombers also died.
Just as in Paris, Belgian authorities were searching for at least one fugitive in Tuesday's attacks — this time for a man wearing a white jacket who was seen on airport security footage with the two suicide attackers. The fear is that the man, whose identity Belgian officials say is not known, will find Abdeslam's path instructive.
Source
|
On March 24 2016 07:21 TMG26 wrote:According to this the suicide bombers were held in jail before the bombing, why is no journal reporting it? Show nested quote +Two brothers Khalid and Ibrahim El Bakraoui were reportedly detained according to the media when one of the brothers showed up at a hospital with a broken leg. The other brother was found hiding in a house police were searching. The two brothers were known to have links to violent crime in the Brussels area. edit: bonus
Person did crime, person served time, person was released.
Note this was like a year and a half ago I believe?
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On March 24 2016 07:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 07:21 TMG26 wrote:According to this the suicide bombers were held in jail before the bombing, why is no journal reporting it? Two brothers Khalid and Ibrahim El Bakraoui were reportedly detained according to the media when one of the brothers showed up at a hospital with a broken leg. The other brother was found hiding in a house police were searching. The two brothers were known to have links to violent crime in the Brussels area. edit: bonus Person did crime, person served time, person was released. Note this was like a year and a half ago I believe?
Also, it's being reported well... everywhere.
|
On March 24 2016 02:30 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2016 09:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:There are achievable goals and not achievable goals. Massive forced vegetarianism is most certainly not achievable. Then there's the idea that global warming happens on a scale, it's not a binary 'warmer' or 'not warmer'; either way it's going to get warmer but we need to try to make the increase as small as we can - even if all our combined efforts to combine climate change results in global average temperatures rising by 1.6 instead of 2 degrees over the next 50 years then that might be the difference between living areas inhabited by 120 and 200 million (im just throwing out numbers here, not even guesstimations, it's just to illustrate the line of thinking) becoming uninhabitable. Agreed that the whole super eco fridges thing is silly though, but that's mostly a lot of people don't actually discard their old fridge when they get a new super eco one - they just move the old one to the basement and then they have two fridges. lol. To add to this... There are tons of other, non climate influencing, emissions that are bad for the enviroment and health of people. Reduing that is NEVER bad. I'm far from a green hippie, but i don't see in what world it is bad to use (and support) more efficient or emission free "technologies"(like bike-technology . Bikes are actually a great example. Depending on your situation you barely lose any traveling time, you do something for your health, you save money and on top of all that it is, aside from the production, emission free. Its win/win/win, that doesn't mean you should force people to use a bike, but why wouldn't you aid/support/help people that commute mainly by bike? Btw: I don't even own a bycicle :D
the issue with a bike is that you're all sweaty when you arrive. I really cannot have that in my job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
