Interesting to see how
"US skeptics" bullied Penn Jillette
- 1950 USA You are NOT ALLOWED to say you don't believe in God, based on Argument from Authority
- 2008 USA You are NOT ALLOWED to say you don't believe in CAGW , based on Argument from Authority
- We know 2 things
1. The human brain doesn't like uncertainty, it likes to fill in the gaps rather than say "I don't know"
2. Given a choice between Simple :pick a side (with all answering dogma), or admit something is complicated ..people will go for the dogma side
3. The thing is that people who are most certain about something are the least reliable
4. Even I can be wrong , I can think I am certain, but then it turns out that I didn't check my facts properly
- After Penn mentioned his Bullshit prog on Global Warming I thought I would check if he still stands up today. What I found was that in 2008
at the skeptics conference some one asks Penn Jillette "Do you believe in Global warming he says "I don't know",
I don't have enough information" ,
He was then subject to an attack "how can you not believe the evidence is overwhelming ! etc."
STOP this ..It is BULLYING.. It's a fundamental rule of skepticsm that people should be repected when they say "I don't know"
and "I don't know" is absolutely the correct thing to say when you don't know instead of rushing to BELIEF without the 2 stages of science a process theory backed up by quality evidence.
.. below an explanation
Why Belief in CAGW is just an appeal to authority not REAL Science
- I realise what the pseudo skeptics are doing now. It's simply an appeal from authority (AfA). They are certain, not because they understand all the science, but cos they are relying on AUTHORITY
- Believing stress cause ulcers is AfA "all the institutes say so".
- Believing bacteria cause ulcers is not AfA, because, there is a 1. a process theory which fits and 2. It's backed up by PROPER scientific trials .
- CAGW is like the stress case cos although they have 1. process theory
they don't have 2. enough QUALITY of scientific evidence to confirm... that's why their predictions are so way off
It is astounding how belief/disbelief in CAGW is so similar to belief in God.
- Does god exist ? ans "I don't know"
can you prove he DOESN'T exist ? .. "You cannot prove a UNIVERSAL existential negative." *
can you prove CAGW DOESN'T exist ? .. "You cannot prove a UNIVERSAL existential negative." * .. It upto the "CAGW believers" to prove CAGW exists by defining their theory and exhaustively searching out instances where it doesn't seem to work..they haven't done this properly yet. Rather like God it is so undefined it can't be disproved **
- It takes only 1 instance to prove somethings exists, it takes infinity to prove it doesn't
- So lets flip back to 1950's America : People were made to assert in public that you Absolutely Believe in something which CANNOT BE DISPROVED .. God
Now in 2008 America : People were made to a assert in public that you Absolutely Believe in something which CANNOT BE DISPROVED .. Climate Catastrophe is Certain CAGW
... So that's how I get that conclusion I opened with
* (It is commonly called "you can't prove a negative", some people then observe you can prove some negatives ..and therefore the logic debunked, but actually it's
short hand for a much more logical expression.
Which is, "You cannot prove a universal, existential negative.")
** Furthermore CAGW Theory is unscientific according to Popper's work cos the theory is unfalsifyable e.g. Humans still pump out a lot of CO2 and the temperature stays the same then that is still called GW. The Climate system produces more cold and snow and it is still called GW.
In good science you come up with a theory , then instead of looking for the 100 occasions when your theory works, you try to find just the 1 time your theory doesn't work , which therefore shows it is not universal and therefore not science.
So under what circumstances is todays theory of CAGW unfalsifyable ? What is the evidence they can seek to say "No it doesn't work" ?
... If the theory is "there is an almost instant relationship between MM CO2 and Global Temperature", then that theory is broken
*** I note in a 2011 video Penn says he wish hadn't said "I don't know" cos it can mistronstrued "Somethings seem true", but he doesn't like the extra politics"don't call this a retraction
Someone else compared God & CAGW
@rgbatduke uses Pascals's wager to show CAGW belief is same as belief in God
- someone points out another page says the same same for CAGW
|"You can't prove a negative"|
“you can’t prove a EXISTENTIAL negative,”
- While writing the above I came across this major error propagating across the internet, because of Wikipedia article.
- People are beginning to say "ha you can prove SOME negatives so this rule doesn't hold".
- Actually "You can't prove a negative" is common short hand for “you can’t prove a UNIVERSAL existential negative”.
- In other words, you cannot prove that some hypothetical does not exist, anywhere in the universe, because that would require that you be able to look everywhere at the same moment. And, of course, if the hypothetical something, in question is claimed to be invisible and undetectable by any means, in principle, it gets even sillier to attempt to disprove that hypothetical's existence. e.g. God or telepathy etc.
|What Penn Should Have said
is "I don't know ...cos it's so FREAKIN complicated"
It seems to me, that to the question there are 2 basic options
- 1. a simple one : just agreeing with Green Dogma
- 2. saying "STOP it's so freakin complicated" ..and then go into a whole heap of detail.
Again see the parallel with God
When everyone else in the church takes the easy option and says "it was all God",
... And there is one guy who says "it's so freakin complicated : we've got evolution, genetics, uncertainty and loads of stuff we don't understand yet !"