Al Gore receives Nobel Peace Prize

[Roland32]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow... head against wall
Are you an expert?
Are you in a position to judge minority expert opinion to majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a brain?

So, let me state your position since you have such an incredibly weak command of the English language and/or the principles of coherent written communication:

It is your position that in complex areas of intellectual/scientific discussion, it is irrational per se for any non-expert to hold an independent opinion on the matter based on his own analysis of the issue because, lacking expertise, he is not qualified to engage in any such analysis with any degree of competence. Therefore, he should simply side with the majority, because the odds are better the majority is right, or, he should hold no opinion at all.

Of course, I have objections, in sum:

1. There is no inherent principal which holds that a majority of expert opinion is more likely to be right then the minority expert opinion on any single complex issue simply because said majority opinion is the majority opinion.

2. Just like non-experts, scientists/experts are not, simply because they are scientists/experts, the ultimate arbiters of objective truth. Experts are human, and are subject to all the various and sundry human foibles. Just like non-experts, it is possible that, sometimes, experts might succumb to political pressure, corruption, group think, conceit, self-interest, self-delusion, denial, bias, incompetence, marred objectivity, unethical behavior, or financial interest, etc..

A rational person need not be an expert in the relevant scientific field to form a reasoned opinion that a specific expert, or even a consensus of experts, on a particular issue, is being driven, at least in part, by motivations other than pure objective science. You need no specific scientific training to recognize certain 'human' deviations from objectivity. Therefore, the non-expert may indeed have a rational basis, even though he is a non-expert, to disagree with that individual scientist, or that so-called scientific consensus, where his rational basis for his conclusion of disagreement is formed, ultimately, not in the relevant specific scientific disipline at issue, but in human nature and its faults. This non-expert may be wrong at times, or even most times, in his conclusion, but to say that such a conclusion can only be reached by an irrational person, is simply wrong.

Flame away troll boy, doubtful I'll ever respond to your low content worthless posts again.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow

To your first point:
You cannot possibly believe that. Not only is contrary to logic, statistics, it is in direct defiance to common sense. Again i go back to the world being flat and the center of the Universe. There is a Flat Earth Society, are you a member?

Second Point:

This shows dramatic ignorance to very general Scientific community principals. I can only assume that you have no idea how peer reviewed journals work.

[BuddyQ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow... head against wall
Are you an expert?
Are you in a position to judge minority expert opinion to majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a brain?

So, let me state your position since you have such an incredibly weak command of the English language and/or the principles of coherent written communication:

It is your position that in complex areas of intellectual/scientific discussion, it is irrational per se for any non-expert to hold an independent opinion on the matter based on his own analysis of the issue because, lacking expertise, he is not qualified to engage in any such analysis with any degree of competence. Therefore, he should simply side with the majority, because the odds are better the majority is right, or, he should hold no opinion at all.

Of course, I have objections, in sum:

1. There is no inherent principal which holds that a majority of expert opinion is more likely to be right then the minority expert opinion on any single complex issue simply because said majority opinion is the majority opinion.

2. Just like non-experts, scientists/experts are not, simply because they are scientists/experts, the ultimate arbiters of objective truth. Experts are human, and are subject to all the various and sundry human foibles. Just like non-experts, it is possible that, sometimes, experts might succumb to political pressure, corruption, group think, conceit, self-interest, self-delusion, denial, bias, incompetence, marred objectivity, unethical behavior, or financial interest, etc..

A rational person need not be an expert in the relevant scientific field to form a reasoned opinion that a specific expert, or even a consensus of experts, on a particular issue, is being driven, at least in part, by motivations other than pure objective science. You need no specific scientific training to recognize certain 'human' deviations from objectivity. Therefore, the non-expert may indeed have a rational basis, even though he is a non-expert, to disagree with that individual scientist, or that so-called scientific consensus, where his rational basis for his conclusion of disagreement is formed, ultimately, not in the relevant specific scientific disipline at issue, but in human nature and its faults. This non-expert may be wrong at times, or even most times, in his conclusion, but to say that such a conclusion can only be reached by an irrational person, is simply wrong.

Flame away troll boy, doubtful I'll ever respond to your low content worthless posts again.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow

To your first point:
You cannot possibly believe that. Not only is contrary to logic, statistics, it is in direct defiance to common sense. Again i go back to the world being flat and the center of the Universe. There is a Flat Earth Society, are you a member?

Second Point:

This shows dramatic ignorance to very general Scientific community principals. I can only assume that you have no idea how peer reviewed journals work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Conclusions based on nothing and ad ad hominem attack, its all you ever have to offer. Ever here of addressing the basis for your conclusions?

LOL, you think peer reviewed journal entries are ALWAYS based purely on objective science and are never compromised in any way, ever? BHAhahahah....
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1114539

[Roland32]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow... head against wall
Are you an expert?
Are you in a position to judge minority expert opinion to majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a brain?

So, let me state your position since you have such an incredibly weak command of the English language and/or the principles of coherent written communication:

It is your position that in complex areas of intellectual/scientific discussion, it is irrational per se for any non-expert to hold an independent opinion on the matter based on his own analysis of the issue because, lacking expertise, he is not qualified to engage in any such analysis with any degree of competence. Therefore, he should simply side with the majority, because the odds are better the majority is right, or, he should hold no opinion at all.

Of course, I have objections, in sum:

1. There is no inherent principal which holds that a majority of expert opinion is more likely to be right then the minority expert opinion on any single complex issue simply because said majority opinion is the majority opinion.

2. Just like non-experts, scientists/experts are not, simply because they are scientists/experts, the ultimate arbiters of objective truth. Experts are human, and are subject to all the various and sundry human foibles. Just like non-experts, it is possible that, sometimes, experts might succumb to political pressure, corruption, group think, conceit, self-interest, self-delusion, denial, bias, incompetence, marred objectivity, unethical behavior, or financial interest, etc..

A rational person need not be an expert in the relevant scientific field to form a reasoned opinion that a specific expert, or even a consensus of experts, on a particular issue, is being driven, at least in part, by motivations other than pure objective science. You need no specific scientific training to recognize certain 'human' deviations from objectivity. Therefore, the non-expert may indeed have a rational basis, even though he is a non-expert, to disagree with that individual scientist, or that so-called scientific consensus, where his rational basis for his conclusion of disagreement is formed, ultimately, not in the relevant specific scientific disipline at issue, but in human nature and its faults. This non-expert may be wrong at times, or even most times, in his conclusion, but to say that such a conclusion can only be reached by an irrational person, is simply wrong.

Flame away troll boy, doubtful I'll ever respond to your low content worthless posts again.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow

To your first point:
You cannot possibly believe that. Not only is contrary to logic, statistics, it is in direct defiance to common sense. Again i go back to the world being flat and the center of the Universe. There is a Flat Earth Society, are you a member?

Second Point:

This shows dramatic ignorance to very general Scientific community principals. I can only assume that you have no idea how peer reviewed journals work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Conclusions based on nothing and ad ad hominem attack, its all you ever have to offer. Ever here of addressing the basis for your conclusions?

LOL, you think peer reviewed journal entries are ALWAYS based purely on objective science and are never compromised in any way, ever? BHAhahahah....

[/ QUOTE ]

You are putting forth a conspiracy that our entire Scientific Process is corrupt, and your laughing at me?

If the science behind Climate Change is bunk, then it will be proven as bunk. Science does not start with the conclusion that there is climatte change, data adds up and experts form conclusions based on that data, we are at the point now that the data has persuaded to the point that it is no longer a mojority but a consensus.

What this means is that thereis in fact more of incentive to DISPROVE Climate Change than it is to add additional data!

Do you not think there are enough interests chomping at the bit to fund studies that will disprove the theory? Ther is not an expert in the field who wouldn't LOVE to be the one who disproves it.

You are showing a profound, profound amount of ignorance to general science principles. I swear I wouldn't be surprised to hear you make the same claim in regards to creation.

[BuddyQ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow... head against wall
Are you an expert?
Are you in a position to judge minority expert opinion to majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a brain?

So, let me state your position since you have such an incredibly weak command of the English language and/or the principles of coherent written communication:

It is your position that in complex areas of intellectual/scientific discussion, it is irrational per se for any non-expert to hold an independent opinion on the matter based on his own analysis of the issue because, lacking expertise, he is not qualified to engage in any such analysis with any degree of competence. Therefore, he should simply side with the majority, because the odds are better the majority is right, or, he should hold no opinion at all.

Of course, I have objections, in sum:

1. There is no inherent principal which holds that a majority of expert opinion is more likely to be right then the minority expert opinion on any single complex issue simply because said majority opinion is the majority opinion.

2. Just like non-experts, scientists/experts are not, simply because they are scientists/experts, the ultimate arbiters of objective truth. Experts are human, and are subject to all the various and sundry human foibles. Just like non-experts, it is possible that, sometimes, experts might succumb to political pressure, corruption, group think, conceit, self-interest, self-delusion, denial, bias, incompetence, marred objectivity, unethical behavior, or financial interest, etc..

A rational person need not be an expert in the relevant scientific field to form a reasoned opinion that a specific expert, or even a consensus of experts, on a particular issue, is being driven, at least in part, by motivations other than pure objective science. You need no specific scientific training to recognize certain 'human' deviations from objectivity. Therefore, the non-expert may indeed have a rational basis, even though he is a non-expert, to disagree with that individual scientist, or that so-called scientific consensus, where his rational basis for his conclusion of disagreement is formed, ultimately, not in the relevant specific scientific disipline at issue, but in human nature and its faults. This non-expert may be wrong at times, or even most times, in his conclusion, but to say that such a conclusion can only be reached by an irrational person, is simply wrong.

Flame away troll boy, doubtful I'll ever respond to your low content worthless posts again.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow

To your first point:
You cannot possibly believe that. Not only is contrary to logic, statistics, it is in direct defiance to common sense. Again i go back to the world being flat and the center of the Universe. There is a Flat Earth Society, are you a member?

Second Point:

This shows dramatic ignorance to very general Scientific community principals. I can only assume that you have no idea how peer reviewed journals work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Conclusions based on nothing and ad ad hominem attack, its all you ever have to offer. Ever here of addressing the basis for your conclusions?

LOL, you think peer reviewed journal entries are ALWAYS based purely on objective science and are never compromised in any way, ever? BHAhahahah....

[/ QUOTE ]

You are putting forth a conspiracy that our entire Scientific Process is corrupt, and your laughing at me?

If the science behind Climate Change is bunk, then it will be proven as bunk. Science does not start with the conclusion that there is climatte change, data adds up and experts form conclusions based on that data, we are at the point now that the data has persuaded to the point that it is no longer a mojority but a consensus.

What this means is that thereis in fact more of incentive to DISPROVE Climate Change than it is to add additional data!

Do you not think there are enough interests chomping at the bit to fund studies that will disprove the theory? Ther is not an expert in the field who wouldn't LOVE to be the one who disproves it.

You are showing a profound, profound amount of ignorance to general science principles. I swear I wouldn't be surprised to hear you make the same claim in regards to creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

There you go again, off on another ranting tantrum. Learn how to read, better yet learn how to understand what you are reading, troll.