Originally posted by @metal-brainSooo credentials matter when they can be used to undermine someone else's point (discrediting polling data, for example), but credentials don't matter at all if the person agrees with your point of view (Dyson, for example). I think I understand now.
That is the standard that evolved on this forum. Let me demonstrate how it evolved. I pointed out that Freeman Dyson is a well respected scientist that questions AGW theory and was also an Obama supporter (not a right winger at all). In turn humy and sonhouse reject him as relevant opinion because he is not a climate scientist.
Rather than reject their ...[text shortened]... nd sonhouse are far more informed on this subject because of me. They knew nothing of it before.
Originally posted by @wildgrassNice spin, though wrong.
Sooo credentials matter when they can be used to undermine someone else's point (discrediting polling data, for example), but credentials don't matter at all if the person agrees with your point of view (Dyson, for example). I think I understand now.
Credentials mean little when debating the facts, but consensus is an entirely different matter. Consensus is opinion without discussion of the facts that lead to the resulting consensus. Nobody trusts the consensus of the ignorant. My criteria is very logical and you know it. Keep your personal feelings out of it.
1 edit
Originally posted by @wildgrassYou now understand MetalBrain perfectly.
credentials matter when they can be used to undermine someone else's point ..., but credentials don't matter at all if the person agrees with your point of view ...
Originally posted by @metal-brainApparently you do. Most of the rest of us don't trust your ignorant opinions.
Nobody trusts the consensus of the ignorant.
Originally posted by @wildgrassNow you understand consensus is not a debate of facts. Consensus is an opinion and nothing more.
Yeah. It took me awhile though.
Originally posted by @metal-brainA scientific consensus represents the general opinion from people in the designated field of study as to what they know to be true. Consensus establishes the starting point for discussion, and a foundation for further study. In a way, it is a debate of facts (although scientists usually don't use that word. It's too definitive.) The opinion of someone outside of the field would not be properly qualified to contribute.
Now you understand consensus is not a debate of facts. Consensus is an opinion and nothing more.
It is actual quite a boring topic for scientists, who are typically more interested in what we don't know yet.
Originally posted by @metal-brainConsensus is agreement on what the facts are. Sure, its an opinion, but to say 'nothing more' about opinions of educated people about subjects they study is a characterisation of the situation.
Now you understand consensus is not a debate of facts. Consensus is an opinion and nothing more.
Originally posted by @twhiteheadWrong.
Consensus is agreement on what the facts are. Sure, its an opinion, but to say 'nothing more' about opinions of educated people about subjects they study is a characterisation of the situation.
noun
1. an opinion held by all or most
2. general agreement, esp. in opinion
Originally posted by @metal-brainSo a dude with a Phd in art history is qualified to talk cosmology? Not a specific individual but the group of people with Phd's in art history, they would be able to talk cosmology? String theory? Fusion?
Then why do science credentials mean so much to you that you constantly try to suppress other's point of view by questioning their credentials?
Credentials should not matter at all. If a point of view is sound what difference does it make if the person is a college dropout or even a high school dropout? Logic is logic.
Originally posted by @wildgrassWrong.
A scientific consensus represents the general opinion from people in the designated field of study as to what they know to be true. Consensus establishes the starting point for discussion, and a foundation for further study. In a way, it is a debate of facts (although scientists usually don't use that word. It's too definitive.) The opinion of someone out ...[text shortened]... uite a boring topic for scientists, who are typically more interested in what we don't know yet.
If a scientific consensus was confined to only what we know to be true ALL climate scientists would admit they do not know if AGW exists. If determining facts were more certain than that we would not be debating this at all. If all data were equal we would all be able to agree what the facts are. This is obviously not the case.
I think you are trying to alter logic to fit your prejudices. After debating this for so long you should know better. Wanting me to be wrong and proving it are very different things. If you want to prove a bias badly enough you will do it despite the facts. That is why scientists are flawed just like anybody else. Samuel Morton had data on skull size. If I trusted his data and accepted it as fact would I be right to do so? Facts are not always true facts.
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-09.htm
If David Duke said Samuel Morton's data was fact would you just accept that?
Originally posted by @sonhouseSure. Talking is mere talking. Would you tell a patent clerk to shut up and stop talking about physics?
So a dude with a Phd in art history is qualified to talk cosmology? Not a specific individual but the group of people with Phd's in art history, they would be able to talk cosmology? String theory? Fusion?
Originally posted by @metal-brain○°○
Sure. Talking is mere talking. Would you tell a patent clerk to shut up and stop talking about physics?