THE ALT-RIGHT HAILS ITS VICTORIOUS GOD-EMPEROR

[Dill]

(12-11-2016, 05:33 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Or, in other words, you have no idea.  You're "pretty sure" about research, and not speaking from education or experience or self-independent knowledge.  You're "pretty sure" based on what you read on whatever site that generally affirms your beliefs.

Useful idiots don't understand confidence intervals, or R-squared, or sample size, or H0.....I can go on and on and on, but I know I'm already well over your head.  But tell me more about my "non-scientific" use of the words "fact" and "theory".

I welcome a debate of the science.  But I know you are absolutely not capable of that.

I'm pretty sure that "pretty sure" doesn't mean either that "I have no idea" or that I am not speaking from education or experience. (Not sure what "self-independent knowledge" is--a garbled attempt to say "independently gained knowledge"?)  I am pretty sure that experienced researchers respect cautious expression more than they do high praise for oneself combined with abusive language towards others.

But speaking from education AND experience, I say self praise and abusive language are not what researchers in any scientific or scholarly field regard as demonstration. How is it I must explain this to someone who knows I am "absolutely incapable" of science debate?     

And now there is an implicit claim that you don't base your arguments on "whatever you read on whatever site that generally affirms your beliefs."  In addition, you apparently took a course in statistics and that positions you to explain why thousands of climate scientists have gotten it wrong for decades (do they know what a "confidence inteval" is?). But this claim to special knowledge also relieves of you any obligation to communicate it to me (us? are others still following this thread?).

That is what's so puzzling--the strong desire to pose superior knowledge, but wholly unaccompanied by any desire to demonstrate it. It is apparently a superior knowledge that finds joy only in invective, not in intellectual dialogue and pursuit of further knowledge. 

Are you sure that, for you, this is really about science and science policy?

PS I can't tell much about your use of terms like "fact" and "theory."  These are not simple terms; they have differing shades of meaning and application in differing sectors of research. When scientists speak to the laymen, they have to simplify and continually explain their specific usages to  avoid confusion. So when someone "bets" that I cannot explain the difference between climate change "fact and theory," it sounds as odd as a reference to "conscious intellectualism." I have to guess what is really meant by someone who doesn't know how to use the terms.  Until more information comes in, I have to imagine am dealing with someone who imagines conflict over scientific interpretations is something like a high school debate in which one side trumps another with something called "facts."  I could be wrong. But I won't just take your word for that.