We sit down with Blizzard to talk about the Alliance, Horde, and Island Expeditions
World of Warcraft: Battle for Azeroth Interview
Retribution, the new PvE co-op mission now live in Overwatch finally delivers on the promise of fun story-based content.
Overwatch Retribution Delivers Fun PvE Story Content
Where we talk about lessons learned, the early experiments, and the evolution of PvE Overwatch.
Talking Overwatch Retribution with Game Director Jeff Kaplan
Political Thread 2.5 (Because we really haven't made any progre...
dazedandconfused
Sydney, New South Wales
597 posts
However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.


So it's not at all almost the exact opposite. Besides, I'm not the one making the claim that the "consensus" is the end of the argument. The burden of proof is on the claimant and the argument from authority is not an argument.
08:36am 17/04/18 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
26363 posts
Kind of sick of hearing you being wrong about climate change and how scientific consensus works. Why don't you tell us your thoughts on Donald Trump and the deep state conspiracy attempting to undermine him instead?
12:54pm 17/04/18 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
3149 posts
Hey dazed why don't you ask fpot to explain Russian collusion.

Personally I think a three country strike on Russian assets in Syria was exactly what Putin was trying to achieve by "electing" Trump.
01:12pm 17/04/18 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Other International
39563 posts
So it's not at all almost the exact opposite.
Not sure you read that quote right; it's the difference between a consensus and cherry picking "the opinion of a person or institution". Here is another definition that explains it better than I probably can.
Besides, I'm not the one making the claim that the "consensus" is the end of the argument.
The "argument" never ends though; science is a process. But there is a practical point at which you can say "there's no point in arguing about this any more because the currently available evidence, data and analysis is comprehensive enough to have formed a theory". That's pretty much where we are now.
The burden of proof is on the claimant and the argument from authority is not an argument.
yes that is why scientists have spent the last couple decades gathering data and analysing it and why the vast vast majority of them agree that something is going on here. their proof is the megatons of papers that have been published on the topic.

if you don't believe the specifics on scientific grounds then it's either that you disbelieve their data or you think their analysis is wrong. You've either done the work yourself and disagree based on one of these two areas - or you're deferring to an authority that does. I don't really have the energy to debate this topic again but I'd be interested in knowing why you think what you think, just out of morbid curiosity.
03:32pm 17/04/18 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
3150 posts
It involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views contradicting the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions
. But there is a practical point at which you can say "there's no point in arguing about this any more because the currently available evidence, data and analysis is comprehensive enough to have formed a theory". That's pretty much where we are now.


Seems doubtful to me that you could say there is consensus beyond "human activity releasing certain chemicals into the atmosphere is strongly correlated with a general trend of rising temperatures measured globally supporting a causal inference"

Vash quote includes a lot more than though.

And let's not pretend he actually believes that. It's a safe bet he actually means the entire greens policy suite is supported by the aforementioned unassailable consensus.

So actually, when you talk about deferring to authority it is very easy to slip into the authority fallacy. It is exactly how vash is using it.
06:10pm 17/04/18 Permalink
dazedandconfused
Sydney, New South Wales
598 posts
Kind of sick of hearing you being wrong about climate change and how scientific consensus works. Why don't you tell us your thoughts on Donald Trump and the deep state conspiracy attempting to undermine him instead?


Your arguments are never more nuanced, complex or thought-out than "you're wrong" so I'll pass.

So actually, when you talk about deferring to authority it is very easy to slip into the authority fallacy. It is exactly how vash is using it.


This is what I was saying. I'm not getting into the climate change debate ever again, except for pointing out the broken logic of people supporting the golden idol of "scientific consensus".
08:50am 18/04/18 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Other International
39564 posts
I'm not getting into the climate change debate ever again
yeh I'm with you on that
except for pointing out the broken logic of people supporting the golden idol of "scientific consensus".
... as long as you remember almost literally everything else in your life around you that keeps you alive, ensures you're productive, allows you to type words on a magic box and have them transmitted around the world in a tiny amount of time and appearing on everyone's screen... all that stuff is done because of scientific consensus. it is not perfect, but it improves over time with new evidence and new data, and it's the best thing we have to inform us about the universe around us so that we can make informed decisions
09:01am 18/04/18 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
3151 posts
as long as you remember almost literally everything else in your life around you that keeps you alive, ensures you're productive, allows you to type words on a magic box and have them transmitted around the world in a tiny amount of time and appearing on everyone's screen... all that stuff is done because of scientific consensus. it is not perfect, but it improves over time with new evidence and new data, and it's the best thing we have to inform us about the universe around us so that we can make informed decisions


Gee I wonder if trog realises how big a red herring this is.

There is a massive difference between understanding science's role in developing technology, and claiming opinion on a subject is incontrovertible because there is a scientific consensus loosely related but you can't even describe.
10:52am 18/04/18 Permalink
notgreazy
Other International
917 posts
claiming opinion on a subject is incontrovertible because there is a scientific consensus loosely related but you can't even describe.
Not trolling but what do you even mean? I can't understand your point.
05:40pm 18/04/18 Permalink
Nmag
Sydney, New South Wales
985 posts
Apparently there is scientific consensus that is loosely related so the theory is still open for debate.

I think my reset option #2 was simpler. What did you think of option 2?

Do you agree the cycle would just start again, because that's what humans and other animals and even plants tend to do?
05:53pm 18/04/18 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
3152 posts
Not trolling but what do you even mean? I can't understand your point.


I don't feel it is especially complicated.

The scientific consensus on climate change is on a fairly narrow set of facts. Such as some human activity is a cause of climate change. So unless you're stating I believe human activity is a cause of climate change, if you cite the scientific consensus on climate change, you're performing a combination of a red herring and an appeal to authority. Specifically a fallacious appeal to authority.

Take an opinion, for example we should end coal fired power generation.

The global scientific consensus does not extend to that opinion. Ar5 of the IPCC explicitly makes a point of not endorsing specific policies because they quote "involve value judgements of a non scientific nature".

It follows that literally any political position almost certainly cannot appeal to the scientific consensus on climate change to support its argument, except for the utterly banal point that climate change is real.

Or to make a less controversial example, there is a scientific consensus that light affects certain chemicals in ways that cause us to experience colour which in turn allows for the creation of paint. You explain to me how that fact justifies painting a cat and not a dog.

or to put it in a suitably condescending c*** phrasing. I hate that you paint cats and not dogs, I hope you realise the scientific consensus on paint enables you to paint at all.
08:01pm 18/04/18 Permalink
Sir Redhat
Sydney, New South Wales
2216 posts
Gee I wonder if trog realises how big a red herring this is.

There is a massive difference between understanding science's role in developing technology, and claiming opinion on a subject is incontrovertible because there is a scientific consensus loosely related but you can't even describe.


Is there a massive difference between coal fired power plants contributing to climate change and painting cats or dogs?
10:55pm 18/04/18 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
3153 posts
That feeling when you mistake a red herring because you committed a straw man.

I don't think you understand what a scientific consensus is. That's ok. But I hope you realise that a scientific consensus allows you to write dreary logical fallacies on the internet.

It makes modern life possible don't you know.

Try replacing cats and dogs with banning gas powerplants or banning coal powerplants.
07:02am 19/04/18 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Other International
39566 posts
seems like a lot of effort and expense when a single page with "why bother" written in crayon would do the job
10:55am 19/04/18 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
3154 posts
seems like a lot of effort and expense when a single page with "why bother" written in crayon would do the job


It funny that you block people who talk to you exactly as you talk to others.

I don't think you're giving enough respect to the scientific consensus on crayons here.
11:08am 19/04/18 Permalink
notgreazy
Other International
918 posts

I don't feel it is especially complicated.
The scientific consensus on climate change is on a fairly narrow set of facts. Such as some human activity is a cause of climate change. So unless you're stating I believe human activity is a cause of climate change, if you cite the scientific consensus on climate change, you're performing a combination of a red herring and an appeal to authority. Specifically a fallacious appeal to authority.

Just gonna concentrate on this first paragraph because the rest doesn't really add anything. This is a really dumb argument to put forward. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are correct, the current scientific consensus on climate change is based on few facts and does not take into account the whole picture... But you still think they're wrong.

You are arguing against the collective knowledge of several thousand people who have spent the majority of their adult life studying the climate. If you had 1001 plumbers telling you "don't dig there, it's a bad idea" yet you still think they're wrong? They haven't investigating ever facet of the problem, for what reason? If they could they would.

What a dumb argument.
11:57am 19/04/18 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
24049 posts
You are arguing against the collective knowledge of several thousand people who have spent the majority of their adult life studying the climate. If you had 1001 plumbers telling you "don't dig there, it's a bad idea" yet you still think they're wrong? They haven't investigating ever facet of the problem, for what reason? If they could they would.


in global macro economics they call this "everyone being on one side of the boat". it's a classic opportunity to get squeezed, and typically the person who holds the other view makes a fortune because instead of being 99% right forecasters are generally less than 50% right. risk management means to have appropriately sized risks in either camp, and not betting the house (by say disabling your economic growth) on a strongly held view.
12:09pm 19/04/18 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
26364 posts
Human caused climate change is a certainty. Not a near certainty, not a strong possibility, a certainty. Let's pretend for a moment though that it was a 50/50 proposition. Do you think taking measures to prevent it would be a worthy step despite the disruption to economic growth compared to pretending it doesn't exist and the catastrophe that would (will) entail?
12:21pm 19/04/18 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
3155 posts

Just gonna concentrate on this first paragraph because the rest doesn't really add anything. This is a really dumb argument to put forward. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are correct, the current scientific consensus on climate change is based on few facts and does not take into account the whole picture... But you still think they're wrong.


I don't think it's possible for you to have misunderstood more profoundly.

The consensus is about certain facts in the natural world.

It does not tell you what you should do.

The IPCC explicitly make this statement.

The fact that coal powerplants contribute to climate change does not without more justify turning them all off. This is because there are a range of other considerations and options which the climate science is silent on.

Acknowledgeing these other important factors absolutely does not run against the scientific consensus on climate change. It is the opinion of The scientific community which forms the IPCC. They freely acknowledge other factors may trump their input. Nothing about that says climate science is wrong.

I am directly quoting from their report my emphasis

Natural, technical, and social sciences can provide essential information and evidence needed for decisions on what constitutes "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the climate system. At the same time, such decisions are value judgments determined through socio-political processes, taking into account considerations such as development, equity, and sustainability, as well as uncertainties and risk. Scientific evidence helps to reduce uncertainty and increase knowledge, and can serve as an input for considering precautionary measures.1 Decisions are based on risk assessment, and lead to risk management choices by decision makers, about actions and policies


I don't know how to make it clearer to you.

The scientific consensus doesn't without a broad range of other considerations justify a particular policy. The peak body representing climate scientists is very clear on this point.

So call it a dumb argument if you want. It's the argument made by the 1000 plumbers you're talking about.
12:31pm 19/04/18 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
24050 posts
appropriately sized measures, yes. a carbon tax, reducing the standard of living and funding larger bureaucracy, is not an appropriately sized measure actively . encouraging energy efficiency and allowing the natural evolution of alternative energy sources is.

i think it is far more important for major emitters to make significant reductions, than to expect minnows to start first. it is technological innovation which will pave the way for less energy usage and investment which delivers financial returns.
12:36pm 19/04/18 Permalink
notgreazy
Other International
919 posts

Ahaha the IPCC is a bureaucratic s***hole on the same level as the WHO and UN. It is a juggernaut whose movements and results are more akin to a sloth on a highway. Continuing this analogy, if IPCC is a sloth, global warming is a jaguar. We are so f***ed.

FYI that quote is from a report 11 years ago, which itself is quoting a 2001 report.

You are also ignoring a very important note, scientists have shifted from "we can stop climate change" to "we're f***ed, how do we manage the situation?". This is evident all the way back nearly 20 years ago. Everytime you claim I am appealing to authority, you quote IPCC.... nice appeal to authority. Also quoting a tiny bit of a IPCC summary of another IPCC report is itself a red herring. Let's go see what the IPCC says...


The reason for incorporating other non-scientific factors:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/index.php?idp=7

The climate change issue is part of the larger challenge of sustainable development. As a result, climate policies can be more effective when consistently embedded within broader strategies designed to make national and regional development paths more sustainable. This occurs because the impact of climate variability and change, climate policy responses, and associated socio-economic development will affect the ability of countries to achieve sustainable development goals. Conversely, the pursuit of those goals will in turn affect the opportunities for, and success of, climate policies. In particular, the socio-economic and technological characteristics of different development paths will strongly affect emissions, the rate and magnitude of climate change, climate change impacts, the capability to adapt, and the capacity to mitigate.


The scientific consensus is not "loosely related", it directly drives the actions required to deviate from the path of destruction. Other factors are incorporated into decision making to increase the effect of the outcome.

info: f*** you for putting profits first.
01:49pm 19/04/18 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
26365 posts
encouraging energy efficiency and allowing the natural evolution of alternative energy sources is.
This sounds suspiciously like do nothing and hope everything turns out fine to me, which in the context of the 50/50 scenario I gave you is not so bad I guess.

The reality is that climate change is real, it's too late to stop it and now the only goal is to minimise the damage it causes - do you still think the do nothing and hope approach is still appropriate?
02:11pm 19/04/18 Permalink
Nmag
Sydney, New South Wales
986 posts
I keep telling you guys #2, the reset option is the way.

We can have a revolution with placards and everything. Cumon, lets do it this Saturday at about lunch time.

Maybe we could discuss option #3 Candle vigil, with thoughts and prayers for our dieing planet.

We could link arms and sing kum-by-yah and have a peaceful protest of love. Maybe we do that at night, cause the candles look better in the dark.

#2 will be the most fun.

https://mdrtresourcezone.blob.core.windows.net/web-site/image/_asset/e6385eacfc1c42e7aea3a77d00e72b82/reset button.jpg
04:18pm 19/04/18 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
3156 posts
In the paragraph directly above the one you quote. My emphasis.

The basis for determining what constitutes "dangerous anthropogenic interference" will vary among regions -- depending both on the local nature and consequences of climate change impacts, and also on the adaptive capacity available to cope with climate change -- and depends upon mitigative capacity, since the magnitude and the rate of change are both important. There is no universally applicable best set of policies; rather, it is important to consider both the robustness of different policy measures against a range of possible future worlds, and the degree to which such climate-specific policies can be integrated with broader sustainable development policies.


They repeatedly state concerns beyond climate change mitigation can and should be incorporated into policy. You say it yourself when you talk about making them effective. If you destroy people's standard of living in the process you will not get the political will necessary to make a change. I really don't understand how you don't understand this.

FYI that quote is from a report 11 years ago, which itself is quoting a 2001 report.


The issue of policy matters beyond climate change is in the 2014 report. Its like there is no real doubt among the experts on this point.

This is evident all the way back nearly 20 years ago. Everytime you claim I am appealing to authority, you quote IPCC.... nice appeal to authority. Also quoting a tiny bit of a IPCC summary of another IPCC report is itself a red herring. Let's go see what the IPCC says...


See this is you misunderstanding the point profoundly. But it's pretty funny to be chastised about climate science for agreeing with what the peak body on climate science says about how to develop policy.

If you can provide a better source for a synthesis of the state of the research I'm all ears.

The authority fallacy happens when you claim the scientific consensus supports your opinion when it doesn't. Given what they state they have consensus on the range of policies that could unequivocally supported by the consensus is correspondingly narrow.
05:34pm 19/04/18 Permalink
Sir Redhat
Sydney, New South Wales
2217 posts
I keep telling you guys #2, the reset option is the way.

We can have a revolution with placards and everything. Cumon, lets do it this Saturday at about lunch time.

Maybe we could discuss option #3 Candle vigil, with thoughts and prayers for our dieing planet.

We could link arms and sing kum-by-yah and have a peaceful protest of love. Maybe we do that at night, cause the candles look better in the dark.

#2 will be the most fun.


The reset option happened after the world wars, it's discussed in the Pickety book i mentioned earlier. There was less inequality after war. I don't think he had data for the french revolution.

Given that war and revolution would be the very last options on the table don't you think wealth taxes would be the most sensible way forward?
09:46pm 19/04/18 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Other International
39567 posts
This sounds suspiciously like do nothing and hope everything turns out fine to me, which in the context of the 50/50 scenario I gave you is not so bad I guess.

The reality is that climate change is real, it's too late to stop it and now the only goal is to minimise the damage it causes - do you still think the do nothing and hope approach is still appropriate?
the important thing is to make sure that under no circumstances we tax anyone no matter how badly they're taking advantage of externalities to be profitable at the expense of everyone else
11:13pm 19/04/18 Permalink
Nmag
Sydney, New South Wales
987 posts
don't you think wealth taxes would be the most sensible way forward?


I think if super rich people started pumping out more children and educating them, while the super poor stopped breeding completely, things would start getting more sensible.

The savings would provide such an abundance of wealth that even the poorest would have a quantum leap in living standards. The super rich could hire the super poor as help around the house. The super rich could house and feed all the poor. You would need a good way to deal with the help if they were lazy though. Maybe military for a couple years would help motivate them?

Also, "#2 Reset" is inevitable. One day a meteor will wipe us out, and then the cycle will start again.
08:10pm 20/04/18 Permalink
Vash
5770 posts
Nmag you need to be more subtle with the trolling. Learn from PP.
08:38pm 20/04/18 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
26367 posts
Yeah paraphrasing Russian Twitter bots worked very well for PP maybe you should give that a crack.
08:59pm 20/04/18 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
3157 posts
Yeah paraphrasing Russian Twitter bots worked very well for PP maybe you should give that a crack.


Glorious. Everything that doesn't fit into my uninformed world view (which is slightly less mature than a 13 year old's) is "Russian bots".

Makes sense he identifies high school student political thought.
09:34pm 20/04/18 Permalink
Nmag
Sydney, New South Wales
988 posts
Many social liberal ideals are very suitable for young single lifestyle, but become a lot less relatable after people get into their 30s, get married, and have kids - now the thought of "family values" or "protecting the children" is a lot more relevant. Having children is a strong predictor of more right-wing social views.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-generally-as-citizens-become-more-right-wing-as-we-grow-older

As I could explain it, eventually the penny drops that the people who are committing crimes that put you and your family at risk are most likely scum that are being funded through welfare by their victims. Also as you get wiser you realise there are people who suffer from "laziness" and the same people tend to want to blame others. You start to notice that losers are less likely to accept responsibility for their own poor state of affairs, more likely to blame or despise the successful, and are very quick at finding excuses and convincing each other than 'someone else is to blame'. You start to wonder if these people had put more effort into competitive team sport they might be better adjusted at understanding that achievement comes with effort and lazy players go on the bench, or do not get selected for the team.

So then you start to wonder.. why are we supporting losers so much? And you realise that if we did not, crime would go through the roof.
11:51am 21/04/18 Permalink
sLaps_Forehead
Brisbane, Queensland
7846 posts
05:48pm 21/04/18 Permalink
system
Internet
--
05:48pm 21/04/18 Permalink
AusGamers Forums
Show: per page
1 2 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13
Post a Reply
You must be logged in to post a reply.