What’s that old Usenet saying, “Yes, and they laughed at Bozo the Clown, too?”
HARRIS: Governor Perry – Governor Perry, Governor Huntsman were not specific about names, but the two of you do have a difference of opinion about climate change. Just recently in New Hampshire, you said that weekly and even daily scientists are coming forward to question the idea that human activity is behind climate change. Which scientists have you found most credible on this subject?
PERRY: Well, I do agree that there is – the science is – is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans’ economy at – at – at jeopardy based on scientific theory that’s not settled yet, to me, is just – is nonsense. I mean, it – I mean – and I tell somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said here is the fact, Galileo got outvoted for a spell.
So what if he can’t speak with authority (or even make complete senetences) when discussing his own views on climate change, if I were to have a beer with him thats the last thing I ever would want to talk to him about. So in my mind this is a plus, I mean who wants to talk about science, when we can easily pray away the wild fire currently burning down my house.
See when you post narrow critiques that suggest it was just theologians that challenged Galileo then you are left open to the charge of distortion. Surely the Catholic church put him on trial, but many ancient Greek and medieval philosophers challenged Galileo as well whose ideas flew in the face of widely supported geocentric models, not unlike those espoused by Aristotle.
“…While the evidence coming from the heliocentric camp was often rejected because its mathematical support was not strong enough, there were a large range of other reasons why people and institutions were not ready for such a monumental change in the way people viewed our universe.”
Galileo should indeed have been outvoted. After all, his claims went against the settled science. The authorities had known for almost two thousand years (since the day of Aristotle) that the heavens were perfect, unchanging, and unmovable. Furthermore, Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two World Systems was subjected to rigorous peer review and failed, yet he decided to publish anyway, ignoring the fact that true science does not emanate from crazed single individuals, but from the well-established consensus of the majority.
Galileo should indeed have been outvoted. After all, his claims went against the settled science. The authorities had known for almost two thousand years (since the day of Aristotle) that the heavens were perfect, unchanging, and unmovable. Furthermore, Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two World Systems was subjected to rigorous peer review and failed, yet he decided to publish anyway, ignoring the fact that true science does not emanate from crazed single individuals, but from the well-established consensus of the majority.
The sad part is that he has absolutely no damn clue how ridiculous he sounds saying this.
Despite every fact to the contrary, he just KNOWS he is right because he KNOWS it. Look at his amazingly stubborn and awkward interview on how great abstinence education works in Texas. He feels it in his gut, therefore he knows it is right. Period.
he doesn’t even necessarily know he is right, or care. he is just repeating the message.
The sad part is that he has absolutely no damn clue how ridiculous he sounds saying this.
Despite every fact to the contrary, he just KNOWS he is right because he KNOWS it. Look at his amazingly stubborn and awkward interview on how great abstinence education works in Texas. He feels it in his gut, therefore he knows it is right. Period.
I think to suggest that the motions and nature of heavenly bodies was ‘settled science’ at the time, in the same sense that the greenhouse effect is, would be a false analogy.
However by all means if Perry is aware of Lucid research that shows the earth is NOT in fact warming, or is not in fact warming because of greenhouse gases, he should at least be able to name some of the researches who have made this discoveries, I think.
what do you think?
Galileo should indeed have been outvoted. After all, his claims went against the settled science. The authorities had known for almost two thousand years (since the day of Aristotle) that the heavens were perfect, unchanging, and unmovable. Furthermore, Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two World Systems was subjected to rigorous peer review and failed, yet he decided to publish anyway, ignoring the fact that true science does not emanate from crazed single individuals, but from the well-established consensus of the majority.
I’m assuming that you’re not asking me what I think about GW, since I’m not an expert on that, but what I think about the Galileo analogy.
Well, first I reflect on the fact that Galileo is sometimes thought of as having invented the scientific-empirical method, and that up to that time it was widely believed that even the most specific facts of nature could be known by means of metaphysical speculation, rather than by empirical experiment. So in terms of what passed for “settled science” in his day, Aristotle’s celestial views were indeed the settled science. In that sense, I think that the analogy I used in my previous post, where I portrayed Galileo as an individualist fighting the scientific orthodoxy of his time, was entirely appropriate. (Obviously, I wasn’t really attacking Galileo in my post, which was intended ironically; as you probably know, Galileo is one of my great heros.)
If Perry were contributing to this thread, and if he took enough time to articulate his views well, I think he might suggest that the GW skeptics of today were in much the same position as Galileo with regard to scientific orthodoxy. In addition, he might argue that the devotion of many experts today to unverified computer models of climate was analogous to the faith in a presupposed worldview that motivated Galileo’s opponents.
No I was asking what you think of my idea that if Perry thinks the skeptics are on to something the way Galileo was, he should be able to at least name them as he was asked to do. Or perhaps summarize the viewpoint of the other side. for example: “Roy Spencer, who believes its clouds, not co2 causing the current warming” or “Anthony Watts who believes all attempts at measuring surface temperature are full of errors and manipulations”
Otherwise is suggests he is just trumpeting the pro-industry party line and in fact has no idea what he is talking about.
whiiiich seems to be pretty much what most of these guys do, in both parties =)
what do you think?
I’m assuming that you’re not asking me what I think about GW, since I’m not an expert on that, but what I think about the Galileo analogy.
Well, first I reflect on the fact that Galileo is sometimes thought of as having invented the scientific-empirical method, and that up to that time it was widely believed that even the most specific facts of nature could be known by means of metaphysical speculation, rather than by empirical experiment. So in terms of what passed for “settled science” in his day, Aristotle’s celestial views were indeed the settled science. In that sense, I think that the analogy I used in my previous post, where I portrayed Galileo as an individualist fighting the scientific orthodoxy of his time, was entirely appropriate. (Obviously, I wasn’t really attacking Galileo in my post, which was intended ironically; as you probably know, Galileo is one of my great heros.)
If Perry were contributing to this thread, and if he took enough time to articulate his views well, I think he might suggest that the GW skeptics of today were in much the same position as Galileo with regard to scientific orthodoxy. In addition, he might argue that the devotion of many experts today to unverified computer models of climate was analogous to the faith in a presupposed worldview that motivated Galileo’s opponents.
No I was asking what you think of my idea that if Perry thinks the skeptics are on to something the way Galileo was, he should be able to at least name them as he was asked to do.
I don’t think that politicians should reasonably be expected to be able to quote scientists and cite journal articles off the top of their heads when queried by reporters. Especially scientists in the natural sciences, as opposed to (say) political science or economics.
It was a stupid "gotcha" question, designed to do nothing more than make the intellectual elite (as you have self-identified) feel good about themselves. The real question is how a candidate's beliefs will affect the policies they push for, and I'd bet you would agree with Perry policy for the most part. Several other candidates, including Romney, pushed the "all of the above" idea, that includes more drilling, coal, nuclear, etc. I would have preferred questions to stay on the reality side of the issue, and try to divine how much a regard for the environment will inform the candidates' decisions.
***I think he might suggest that the GW skeptics of today were in much the same position as Galileo with regard to scientific orthodoxy. ***
The skeptics of GW are in the same position of great discovery and theory as Galileo was in his time? This would imply that all the research done by thousands of modern day scientists is wrong based on what…?. Who are these skeptics? What is their evidence? Perry perhaps doesn’t have to name the actual scientist, their methodology, but he should at least have something to say like “I once read an article that said that maybe the earth is warming, but this is cyclical”, or “I once read an article that said the earth is not warming, in fact, we’re getting getting colder”, or “my staff research teams tell me that there are two legitimate positions, but the one I believe is more accurate is…” Shit, if he were just to say something intelligent, once, that would actually be a change.
Perry is not as smooth as Barry, it’s obvious. So re-elect Barry because he deserves to be re-elected for performing like the bold and determined leader you expected. Otherwise, give someone else a shot.
Perry is not as smooth as Barry, it’s obvious. So re-elect Barry because he deserves to be re-elected for performing like the bold and determined leader you expected. Otherwise, give someone else a shot.
Perry is not as smooth as Barry, it’s obvious. So re-elect Barry because he deserves to be re-elected for performing like the bold and determined leader you expected. Otherwise, give someone else a shot.
Who is Barry?
It’s the name Obama gives himself when he’s tryin’ to pass.
***I think he might suggest that the GW skeptics of today were in much the same position as Galileo with regard to scientific orthodoxy. ***
The skeptics of GW are in the same position of great discovery and theory as Galileo was in his time? This would imply that all the research done by thousands of modern day scientists is wrong based on what…?. Who are these skeptics? What is their evidence? Perry perhaps doesn’t have to name the actual scientist, their methodology, but he should at least have something to say like “I once read an article that said that maybe the earth is warming, but this is cyclical”, or “I once read an article that said the earth is not warming, in fact, we’re getting getting colder”, or “my staff research teams tell me that there are two legitimate positions, but the one I believe is more accurate is…” Shit, if he were just to say something intelligent, once, that would actually be a change.
I had just given a quiz to a large class, mostly freshman. Three of the questions were:
Sources should be cited:
a. Always, to avoid plagarism
b. Only when the argument is in written form.
c. When something is not common knowledge.
d. When making an argument to someone that is older or more educated.
e. When making an argument to the general public through mass media or similar outlets.
When supporting your conclusion you should:
a. Use keywords that are easily recognized.
b. Give actual reasons
c. Use vague and abstract terms to make your support broad.
d. Be inconsistent to confuse the other party.
e. All of the above.
A single example for a generalization:
a. Avoids stereotyping.
b. Is fine so long as it is statistically supported.
c. Is representative of a larger subset.
d. Offers very little or no support.
e. Is considered a sample
Hopefully I now have 210 students who can (a) see when someone is full of shit and doesn’t even come close to answering the question presented, (b) think more critically, and (c) create and defend arguements better than at least two people running for President.
