Global Climate Strike

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Beer w/Straw, Sep 20, 2019.

  1. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,166
    well, yes and no. "Much of the impetus for universal education came from the emerging Protestant religions" - "A Brief History of Education" by Peter Gray Ph.D.

    access to maths, science and basic facts gradually grew. Much like the access to scholarly publications gradually grew on the internet, and will likely grow to even greater access. I recently had to read a RAND corp. article by James A. Dewar on the very topic of information and it's cultural effects that were interesting ("The Information Age and the Printing Press")

    Yes. that is true.
    the problem, as I see it, isn't the availability of false information so much as it's the abject failure of the reader to check facts and use critical thinking skills. of course, this is where the bias and cultural cognition problem come into play. lots of people simply seek information that they either want, want to know about, or that everyone else also seeks.

    so what is easier to grasp for your particular belief?
    For the scientifically literate interested in the topic, DNA structure is easily grasped and understood, and the information tends to agree more with their world view... but to the religious fanatic, it's nonsensical trash. this will always be true of the harder to grasp subjects, or at least until they're commonplace like modern geometry, physics, or similar common topics discussed by younger and younger people.

    so what is the difference between then and now?
    not much, really.

    I suspect that factual knowledge will eventually win out over pseudoscience, religion and other types of ideation where evidence isn't required, but the latter will never fade completely away. Pretty much like crime.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,480

    Right. And in a previous age it was hard to get the information that perfectly supported your biases. Now it's trivial.

    The ease of which one can get information that meets their biases.

    As you mentioned, scientifically literate people who can think critically won't have an issue under any circumstances. The illiterate (who can't understand anything more complex than God did it, or whatever) will not be capable of understanding the actual science anyway. But in between there is a huge pool of people who will come to some level of understanding if presented with the science, and a similar level of misunderstanding if presented with pseudoscience. These are the majority. (And is why so many creationists are pushing "teach the controversy!" - because it increases belief in pseudoscience.) So for the majority of people out there, more 'democratic' access to all information - both valid and woo - will result, in general, in more people believing in woo.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,973
    This is a very important point IMO. Well stated...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,166
    until such time as the overwhelming number of youths take the cultural baggage of "woo" and relegate it to the bin, much like we've done with the "travelling above 50 miles per hour will make a woman's uterus fly out" beliefs.
    - http://mentalfloss.com/article/67806/early-trains-were-thought-make-womens-uteruses-fly-out


    Of course, it will take a similar disdain for the idiocy that is culturally ingrained and a similar breaking of the "old school ways" of our forefathers.

    It's entirely possible that so long as we allow freedom of speech, we'll have the nutters who promote irrational beliefs, regardless of how thoroughly debunked they are. Of course, if we do not allow freedom of speech and the free sharing of ideas we impede our own progress and the ability to share knowledge. catch-22.

    I still think the problem is more cultural than anything else.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,480
    Well, what's relegated that to the bin is that people see women driving above 50mph with uteri intact. That's not true of the so-called "round earth" theory, or germ theory, or evolution. Almost no one sees those things. (Note that flat eartherism is coming back, now that we've entered a bit into our current age of unreason.)
     
  9. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,166
    well... sort of: no one sees those things without some effort or education, which kinda underscores the point ...

    In our modern culture, if someone stated "women’s bodies were not designed to go at 50 miles an hour. Female passengers uteruses would fly out of their bodies as they were accelerated to that speed" today then they would face not only ridicule, but they could be easily proven wrong in any car, motorbike or train. A hundred years ago that was not really the case as the technology wasn't as widespread and available.

    The same will eventually happen with Germ theory or evolution because we can see that it's already happening in our society.

    Flat earth is enjoying a comeback for a couple of reasons, starting with our cultures propensity to classify the comments of a media personality, actor/actress, or similar popular character above anyone else. This idolatry or ideation is symbolic of a cultural problem, imho, and supports the points above regarding knowledge. Any person who hikes a high mountain or takes a blue water cruise, for any reason, especially with Sailboats in the local area, is capable of seeing the curvature of the earth demonstrating the fallacious nature of flat earth... the problem isn't that our culture allows idiots like this because of free speech, it's that our culture doesn't provide enough education to allow the listener to distinguish the idiocy.

    of course, we're both saying that. I'm just saying that I think it's more of a cultural problem than an information problem and it appears, at least to me, that you're focusing on the information availability aspect. Information on idiotic fads has always been freely available and abundant, in many forms, and we still carry the scars in our culture with things like customs, wives tales or superstition.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,480
    How would one "see" evolution from (for example) primate to man? Even today, creationists dodge that by saying "what we see is MICROevolution. That's true of course. But there's no MACROevolution."
    It's also that they can go to a website and find answers to the objections you raise above. For example, from the Flat Earth Society wiki:

    The "Sinking Ship" effect

    The Sinking Ship Effect is an effect by which distant bodies appear to sink into the surface of the earth. This effect was used as a direct proof in ancient times for the earth's spherical nature, and is a main reason for mankind's adoption of the globular hypothesis.

    In Earth Not a Globe its author discovers that this effect is inconsistent. Sometimes it occurs, and at other times it does not occur. A distant body such as a lighthouse will sometimes seem to be obscured, and that at other times the lighthouse will be revealed, allowing the observer to see further than the globe earth should allow. Rowbotham says that the sinking ship effect is most likely to occur when the weather is not calm and the observations are conducted over hectic ocean environments. In more landlocked areas such as lakes, canals, and ocean inlets, and under calm conditions, the effect is less likely to occur. This inconsistent nature of the effect is contrary to the argument that the sinking effect must the result of a spherical earth.

    With the advent of photography and time-lapse photography we can analyze this phenomenon closely to determine its true nature, observing that not only is the effect inconsistent, it is not a perfect effect either.

    The phenomenon of "sinking" is a known effect of atmospheric refraction. In Physics of the Air By Dr. William Jackson Humphreys (bio) we read a description on p.449:

    Sinking - Instead of increasing the curvature of rays the temperature distribution may be such as, on the contrary, to decrease it and thereby cause objects normally on the horizon to sink quite beyond it. Such phenomena, exactly the reverse of looming, are also most frequently observed at sea.
    ============
    I agree with you on the cultural issues. Those have always been a problem and always will be. The availability of pseudoscience merely serves to amplify those tendencies.
     
  11. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,166
    well, you didn't specify primate to man, just evolution, which can be seen in various avian species around the globe. It's been recently observed (since 1981) with Peter and Rosemary Grant's Galapagos Finches (4 Finch generations) so that is what I had in mind with evolution.
    and as I said, that is because the culture doesn't hold them with disdain for being so blatantly stupid. and to be honest, it also appears, imho, that laziness is a large part of the problem.

    The idiocy in the above Sinking Ship Effect and the continued explanations against evolution from religious organisations serves to demonstrate the cultural issue more so than anything else. And essentially it's all just a modified god-of-the-gaps argument: they assume that, because they, personally, don't understand it or because they, personally, don't hold the knowledge, then it must be explainable by [insert faith or pseudoscience here]. It's easier to cling to the [insert faith or pseudoscience here] because they always have an answer to retort, regardless of its accuracy, objectivity or reality. The problem with that is, as others learn to understand it, it then shifts to another point where the lack of knowledge then appeals to [insert faith or pseudoscience here]. So long as it presents what appears to be a logical and technical argument to a layman uneducated in the field, it will be acceptible.

    This is also going to continue to be a problem because the world has become so specialised. How many true polymaths existed 200 years ago, 100 years ago and today? Then add to the fact that we've developed technology that can archive our knowledge rather than rely upon the fallible human brain, and what you get is the current situation.

    These types of pseudoscience are growing mostly because people aren't educated in STEM well enough to combat ignorance, nor are they capable of researching a topic, be it due to lack of time or the inability to differentiate between legitimate or other source material. This will especially be true of the uneducated who idolise and put high regard on the underdog believing that because [x] is an underdog and presents a thoughtful, charismatic argument then it must be more true than [y], which is dry and too technical to comprehend without specialisation or extra training.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,528
    Only when the framing and views agree with Fox News.
    If they firmly and without "bothsides" screwing around disagree with Fox, especially in those topics, they are far more likely to be accurate and honest within reason than Fox ever is.
    The difference between the Republican Party politicians since Reagan and all others is large enough to be qualitative - there is no equivalence in the scope, nature, or consequences of the lying employed by the modern Republican Party and the comparatively small and normal lies employed by all others.
    The breakover was around 1980, with the full Monty hitting around 1990 or shortly thereafter - touchstone events being the adulation of Limbaugh, the achievement of financial security by Fox News, and the organizational effects of Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz.
    Basically plateaued since then, rerunning at the level that brought us W and Trump and the Republican ascendancy. The current "bothsides" denial of history is recurrent from the collapse of the W&Cheney administration, for example (same people, even).
    People have forgotten how bad things were in the 90s and 2000s, true, how saturated in Republican lies the media was - but the effects have accumulated. They are worse now - not the lying so much, but the cumulative consequences. Agw is an example - same basic lies, but increasingly severe consequences.
     
  13. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,166
    I was going to start a new thread for this but it seemed to fit with the discussion we were having, so I'm putting it here

    Talking about pseudoscience and cultural issues: Who gets to say if an answer is right in Math?
    Yes, that is a legitimate question and it comes from the following source:
    - https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/socialstudies/pubdocs/Math SDS ES Framework.pdf

    sent from a friend who, being a "minority female engineer of questionable sexual preferences" (her words, not mine), found the entire thing repugnant. https://www.king5.com/article/news/...dies/281-168fafda-6bf6-4ec1-ba0d-2a47c5030de3

    she pointed out some things that are good, like this, in her opinion
    my friend also noted that questions like "Who gets to say if an answer is right in Math?" are nonsensical.


    I'm checking out the data but I don't understand how Mathematics can be oppressive unless you're incapable of learning the subject and feel that, because you're incapable, the subject must, therefore, be oppressive. That line of thought is irrational.

    feel free to add thoughts and expound as I am completely and utterly baffled by the thought of a STEM course being oppressive.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,480
    Agreed, but again, that's easily deniable with the claim "microevolution not macroevolution." That argument is one of many that essentially says "yes, I support science that I see with my own eyes, but if that same science is both hard to see and detrimental to my political position, it's just an unproven theory."
    I'd say that's more an argument from personal incredulity; since I can't understand it, it must be be inexplicable (therefore supernatural.)
    In addition, I'd add that today, more than ever, we see problems/positions/explanations as binary. Democrats support climate change science, and Republicans support religion. Therefore anything that supports climate change or evolution is a win for "the other side" - and must be opposed if someone doesn't want to see their team "lose."
    Agreed there. I am a big supporter of STEM for kids for that reason.
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,480
    Math can't be oppressive. It just is. It can be taught in ways that is oppressive, of course - but we have largely left those days behind, with a few exceptions (see below.)

    I would be all for a course on racial inequality in math - or other courses of study. However, such studies should remain separate from basic math IMO. (Which they are, in this case.) Same with Bible studies; I am all for study of the Bible (and other religious texts) in public school - but within the purview of a religious studies course, not a science course.
    A simple example are the STEM-related courses taught only to white males, as was the case in many schools ~100 years ago. A more modern example would be the fact that overall in the US, 18% of white students are identified as potential candidates for gifted programs, but only 1% of black students.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2019
  16. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,166
    Yeah, I can accept that. I think it's a combination of the two, though.
    obviously, since I have a different opinion, this must be wrong!
    [just messing about - I totally agree with that statement. it just reminded me of a meltdown on another thread]
    same here. Proud father of 3 STEM graduates. I pushed it hard for the kids and still do for the grandkids and the local school, which I've already had words with regarding their teachers in STEM courses pushing a religious ideology.

    my sentiments exactly.
    Quick question: did you learn any history related to math in school (not college)? I can remember some being taught (Algebra, for instance).

    This number baffles me as well. I wonder how this matches up with the population diversity?
    Do you have sources for the numbers?
    I'm going looking for some numbers but I'd like any source you find as well. Thanks.

    this makes my daughter of the 1%... I should tell her! She'll love that... LOL
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,528
    The "exception" is the common reality.
    Math is in fact very often - usually - taught in ways whose effects are to suppress and exclude certain kinds of people - most often automatically, structurally, without anyone's intentional effort or awareness.
    Even more routinely, its appearance and form is referenced and employed in such ways in the common arena of public discourse - as in the use of statistics to support racial and sexual suppression (look at any argument over racial IQ). That poisons the well.
    Maybe the easiest way to see trouble is to attend closely to what is forgiven, what is tolerated, in the promising student or child. Patterns will become visible, if one has enough opportunity to observe.
    Another way into the subject might be by first observing it in some other and alien field - it might be easier for math guys to see these factors in operation in the teaching of poetry and prose fiction, and for the literary to see them in operation in math class. The step of recognition may be lowered thereby. The hazard there is ignorance, of course - but there are math guys who can write well (a fairly high percentage, in my experience, if one excludes engineers), and writers who can handle mathematics (lower percentage, imho, but not zero). We can listen to them.
    The "we" that enforces that binary view, creates and defends that described division, and gains by it, is nowdays an identifiable political faction consciously and intentionally organized by professionals in the field.
    - - - -
    Much as I agree that even the well-justified reactions against the use of math and school class conventions to bully the vulnerable and exclude the outsider are often led by the inept and organized around the ridiculous, the question of who gets to say if an answer is right in a math class is unfortunately not at all senseless.

    Even more pertinent: the question of who gets to say which incorrect answers are the most wrong, and why, can be central. That's where a lot of teaching happens, more than in the certification of the correct, no?

    Just the common pattern of restricting the publicity and public discussion of bias to the least mathematically able, people obviously inept at mathematics, visibly influences.

    A cleaner illustration: As someone who has been employed (a while ago, but not much has changed in the basic situation) to score national exams and the standard tests increasingly imposed on students these days, I can verify that merely being mathematically correct is no guarantee one's answer is "right" according to the rubric employed by the official scorers - and being mathematically or arithmetically incorrect is even less predictive of one's score.

    It does make a difference who gets to decide which forms of a correct answer count as "right", which incorrect answers are the most wrong, and why. It makes a difference in one's score - the points on the test. And that is in an ostensibly sterile, impersonal, technical situation.

    In the much more complex and complicated situations obtaining in classrooms, arbitrary authority can have great influence. In a culture structured by and rooted in racial and sexual oppression for centuries and counting, that arbitrary authority is unlikely to be even handed no matter how well intentioned.

    Even the AIs trained in on US data display racial and sexual bias unless actively corrected by the aware. It's another of the inconvenient truths - the entire culture is saturated now, not just in the past.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2019
  18. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,180
    they are a public relations media marketing company
    they create content for entertainment
    those whom are too ignorant to comprehend the difference between them and a news company are only going to cripple the adult discussion.
     
  19. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,180
    such an abusive accusation

    you are 100% troll
     
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,016
    Stop promoting 4-Chan.

    You people really are desperate.

    (Edit note: Extraneous word removed in order to clarify for those who might not read punctuation very well.)
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019 at 3:25 PM
  21. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,166
    I was not promoting 4chan and that was clear in the original post.

    Fuck, you people are desperate.
    you people?
    us Liberal Anarchists are desperate?
    who is "you people" anyway?

    says the person who claimed the electoral college is a cartel? LOL
    thanks for the laugh!
     
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,345
    several record cold days last winter and more record cold expected in the midwest

    so

    for today's climate strike
    please strike a match
     
  23. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    810
    I'm not for climate change or against it.

    I'm just hoping plants will win so they can evolve to make their own decisions.

    I mean too warm too cold. Plants don't really care because they don't have thermostats to screw up either effect.
     

Share This Page