Why care about extinction?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

dustin, in the context of this sentence if is equivilent to when. If you want to argue that it was an example, then why would you choose an example that was completely and utterly ludicrous?

How is "if" equal to "when" in the context?

 

[andyandy]

How is "if" equal to "when" in the context?

dustin, we've already established from other threads that you don't understand context.

Either it was meant as when [as the context of your paragraph implies] and it was a completely incorrect statement, or it was used purely to denote a hypothetical situation, in which case it was a misleading and wholly ridiculous example to give. Whichever you want.

care to address the rest of the post?

 

[xingyifa]

In this world or a perfect world.
Sure, My debate skills could improve. Anyones could. But I'd be willing to bet I'm better at it than you are.

Nope.

And even if I were a famous climatologist with decades of experience, It would be irrelevant to my argument and would lend no credence to it.

This would only be the case if your argument stood by itself by supporting every point using the most applicable peer reviewed science available. You haven't used any peer reviewed literature that I recall nor have you defended criticisms of your arguments with them. You HAVE however, made a fair number of statements and claims. Without proper scientific backing, how can they be taken to be anything other than your own opinion. As such, I find myself wondering what your opinion is worth...

This would lead back to the question of credentials...

There's no "documentation" that the climate models can be extrapolated for hundreds more years. It was an assumption offering an example of how hot Earth could possibly get.

So that's like...an opinion?

There are no such papers proving any such thing and still, our credentials are irrelevant.

So... regarding the climate graphs: that was all just your opinion?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

dustin, we've already established from other threads that you don't understand context.

Too vague. Be specific.

Either it was meant as when [as the context of your paragraph implies] and it was a completely incorrect statement, or it was used purely to denote a hypothetical situation, in which case it was a misleading and wholly ridiculous example to give. Whichever you want.

How was it misleading if it was a hypothetical situation?

care to address the rest of the post?

There's nothing much to address that I haven't already addressed.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

This would only be the case if your argument stood by itself by supporting every point using the most applicable peer reviewed science available.

That's the case if my argument has all of the evidence in the world or no evidence at all. If I had no evidence then my being an expert would lend credence to my claims? Experts don't need evidence?

You haven't used any peer reviewed literature that I recall nor have you defended criticisms of your arguments with them.

So?

You HAVE however, made a fair number of statements and claims. Without proper scientific backing, how can they be taken to be anything other than your own opinion. As such, I find myself wondering what your opinion is worth...

For the statements and claims I have made, I have explained how they are correct. Without proper scientific backing? I need to be an expert to have "scientific backing"? So if I claim that "Evolution is a fact", my not being a biologist means the statement has no scientific backing?

This would lead back to the question of credentials...

Which are Irrelevant.

So that's like...an opinion?

No. The correct term is "hypothetical example".

So... regarding the climate graphs: that was all just your opinion?

No. The correct term is "hypothetical example".

 

[xingyifa]

For the statements and claims I have made, I have explained how they are correct. Without proper scientific backing?

You have explained poorly. You have not provided any evidence or scientific backing... thus, your statements and claims are opinion.

I need to be an expert to have "scientific backing"?

No... and arguments from authority are weak. However, at this point, an argument from authority would be a step up for you. So, can you provide peer reviewed evidence that any of your theories are valid? Can you at least provide credentials that would make anyone think you have anything worthwhile to say?

Let me give another example. A world reknowned phycisist writes a paper on the nature of some obscure phenomenon within his field of expertise. The paper doesn't include any of the math that would support his conclusion, but he is a scientist of good repute and other scientists have already confirmed his findings. Under these circumstances, it would not be unreasonable to take his paper at face value. Is there any reason anyone should think you're not just making things up at this point?

So if I claim that "Evolution is a fact", my not being a biologist means the statement has no scientific backing?

No. The claim would still require the same peer-reviewed evidence as any other scientific claim you could make. However, you being a biologist would at least let me know that I could discuss this with you as an equal, and it would let other people know that they could read something you wrote without having to fact check every last detail as you probably have some idea what you are talking about.

No. The correct term is "hypothetical example".

So you made it up and posted it on a forum of skeptics without any evidence, but it's not really your opinion??? You just pulled something out of your butt for the hell of it?

No. The correct term is "hypothetical example".

You're not very good at this are you?

 

[athon]

So based on your definition of "subjective" which means 'taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world' would you argue that your thoughts aren't rational since they take place inside of your mind and not in the external world?

Using aesthetics as an objective outcome? Yes, it is irrational.

Athon

 

[andyandy]

There's nothing much to address that I haven't already addressed.

good grief

let's have a look how you "addressed" this....

I have already explained that the Venus example was not supposed to be taken literally. It was just an example of what greenhouse effects can do and how earth can compare.

ok, let's see how well that "addresses" the criticism...

Using the climate trends for 100 to extrapolate temperature in 1000 years isn't that crazy.

Statement. Yes it is. Utterly stupid.
Dustin defence - I didn't mean this to be taken literally.

If current trends continue, there's really nothing that would prevent it from going that far.

Statement based on if clause. Yes there is. This is simply wrong.
Dustin defence - I didn't mean for this to be taken literally.

That's over 40 degrees in about 90 years.

Statement. This is completely wrong.
Dustin defence - I didn't mean for this to be taken literally.

If it continues at that increasing rate (which it looks like it will based on all of the models)

Statement. This is completely wrong.
Dustin defence - I didn't mean for this to be taken literally.

then we will absolutely be in a Venus situation within less than a million years.

Statement based on if clause. Shows complete lack of understanding about exponential growth and about the actual temperature of Venus. Venus is only about 450 degrees C - so by your reasoning we should reach this in just over 1000 years. We will be hotter than the sun in about 18,000 years. In a milion years the temperature will be 200x21999 degrees C.

Dustin defence - I didn't mean for this to be taken literally.


The paragraph i highlighted contains statements which are factually inaccurate. So inaccurate that they show a really basic ignorance of this topic. But these statements were not meant to be taken literally? How else do you propose these statements should be taken? As ignorant ramblings of someone who hasn't the first notion of what he's saying?

[dustin] Eating bananas makes your skin turn yellow.[/dustin]

no they don't - that's ridiculous.

[dustin] that statement wasn't supposed to be taken literally.[/dustin]

so it was wrong? Wholly ignorant of the topic? An idiotic thing to say?

[dustin] no it was a hypothetical example of what would happen if you ate bananas and then your skin turned yellow. [/dustin]

so we can't be confident that any of your statements are actually meant to be true?

[dustin] (repeat ad nauseum, until securing the last post on the matter, hence "winning" the argument) [/dustin]

*sigh*

Dustin, why do you continue to argue? You're just embarrassing yourself. I might have to revise my age estimate down, 15-16 perhaps? How old are you? Really?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Using aesthetics as an objective outcome? Yes, it is irrational.

Athon

You didn't answer my question.

So based on your definition of "subjective" which means 'taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world' would you argue that your thoughts aren't rational since they take place inside of your mind and not in the external world?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You have explained poorly. You have not provided any evidence or scientific backing... thus, your statements and claims are opinion.

Failing to prove every detail of a hypothetical example means I have "explained poorly"?

No... and arguments from authority are weak. However, at this point, an argument from authority would be a step up for you. So, can you provide peer reviewed evidence that any of your theories are valid? Can you at least provide credentials that would make anyone think you have anything worthwhile to say?

If what I say is wrong then all of the credentials in the world wouldn't change that.

Let me give another example. A world reknowned phycisist writes a paper on the nature of some obscure phenomenon within his field of expertise. The paper doesn't include any of the math that would support his conclusion, but he is a scientist of good repute and other scientists have already confirmed his findings. Under these circumstances, it would not be unreasonable to take his paper at face value. Is there any reason anyone should think you're not just making things up at this point?

Scientists would not take his paper at face value. If Hawking wrote some paper and failed to prove his conclusions, scientists would not take it at face value.

No. The claim would still require the same peer-reviewed evidence as any other scientific claim you could make.

I know.

However, you being a biologist would at least let me know that I could discuss this with you as an equal,

What do you mean "discuss it with me as an equal"? Are you claiming that the only way someone could have equal knowledge about evolution as "you" do is to be a biologist?

and it would let other people know that they could read something you wrote without having to fact check every last detail as you probably have some idea what you are talking about.

It's probably best to fact check every last detail whenever you read anything. At least in your own head. Meaning, Never take anything at face value when there's nothing supporting it. If it doesn't agree with what you already know and provides no proof to support what it says then there's no reason to believe it.

So you made it up and posted it on a forum of skeptics without any evidence, but it's not really your opinion??? You just pulled something out of your butt for the hell of it?

Do you know what a "hypothetical example" is? It's not supposed to be 100% factual. It's just supposed to be a rough point based on assumption to use as an example. It's like saying, "Ok, Imagine if I were falling at 55 mph..." This situation doesn't have to be real and it never needed to of happened. It's an "example" used to further a point.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Statement. Yes it is. Utterly stupid.
Dustin defence - I didn't mean this to be taken literally.




Statement based on if clause. Yes there is. This is simply wrong.
Dustin defence - I didn't mean for this to be taken literally.




Statement. This is completely wrong.
Dustin defence - I didn't mean for this to be taken literally.




Statement. This is completely wrong.
Dustin defence - I didn't mean for this to be taken literally.

And?

Statement based on if clause. Shows complete lack of understanding about exponential growth and about the actual temperature of Venus. Venus is only about 450 degrees C - so by your reasoning we should reach this in just over 1000 years. We will be hotter than the sun in about 18,000 years. In a milion years the temperature will be 200x21999 degrees C.

Dustin defence - I didn't mean for this to be taken literally.

Actually, My defense was "I would not of extrapolated it that far." For obvious reasons.

The paragraph i highlighted contains statements which are factually inaccurate. So inaccurate that they show a really basic ignorance of this topic. But these statements were not meant to be taken literally? How else do you propose these statements should be taken? As ignorant ramblings of someone who hasn't the first notion of what he's saying?

I'm afraid you haven't done anything but dissect examples not to be taken literally and shown your lack of understanding of "hypothetical examples". The statements were supposed to be used as rough examples of how greenhouse effects work. That's it.

[dustin] Eating bananas makes your skin turn yellow.[/dustin]

no they don't - that's ridiculous.

[dustin] that statement wasn't supposed to be taken literally.[/dustin]

so it was wrong? Wholly ignorant of the topic? An idiotic thing to say?

[dustin] no it was a hypothetical example of what would happen if you ate bananas and then your skin turned yellow. [/dustin]

so we can't be confident that any of your statements are actually meant to be true?

[dustin] (repeat ad nauseum, until securing the last post on the matter, hence "winning" the argument) [/dustin]

*sigh*

Dustin, why do you continue to argue? You're just embarrassing yourself. I might have to revise my age estimate down, 15-16 perhaps? How old are you? Really?

Is there anything worthy of addressing here? It doesn't look like it.

 

[andyandy]

And?

well that's fine - we can just assume that any statements you make are actually "not to be taken literally" - as in not true.

Is there anything worthy of addressing here? It doesn't look like it.

No you've done a fine job of making yourself look foolish. You don't need to add anything else.

[dustin] spaghetti grows on pasta trees [/dustin]

no it doesn't - that's ridiculous.

[dustin] that statement wasn't supposed to be taken literally.[/dustin]

so it was wrong? Wholly ignorant of the topic? An idiotic thing to say?

[dustin] no it was a hypothetical example of what would happen if spaghetti grew on pasta trees [/dustin]

so we can't be confident that any of your statements are actually meant to be true?

[dustin] (repeat ad nauseum, until securing the last post on the matter, hence "winning" the argument) [/dustin]

You could always address how old you are though...you seem rather reticent on the issue....i wonder why?

 

[Ginarley]

I have always thought biomass far more important than bio diversity. The history of this planet is full of major extinction events that have resulted in radiation of speices to fill vacant environments.

Agree entirely, imo individual species really don't matter that much in the grand scheme of things.

 

[xingyifa]

Failing to prove every detail of a hypothetical example means I have "explained poorly"?

You failed to support any of your claims. Thus, if one were to assume that there were a factual basis for any of them, you have explained said claims extremely poorly.

If what I say is wrong then all of the credentials in the world wouldn't change that.

That's true. I'd just like to hear you admit you have no background that would allow you to sit at the grownups table regarding any science-based discussion.

Scientists would not take his paper at face value. If Hawking wrote some paper and failed to prove his conclusions, scientists would not take it at face value.

You only continue to prove how little you know about how science works. It is quite common for researchers to leave key pieces of information out of a journal article when they are paying hundreds of dollars per page to have it published. If the researchers are held in good repute within their field, and their findings do not contradict known scientific principles, then reviewers, editors, and readers generally let it slide.

The thing is, few people would have the background to understand the complex mathematical models that go into creating the pretty climate charts you are bandying about. I recognize that there is a distinct possibility that I might not appreciate how all the variables would factor in. Thus, if you were a well-reputed scientist who could site the papers where the information necessary to validate your arguments might be found, I would not expect you to try to laboriously explain the complete ecomechanical models that were used to create the charts. I would accept your authoritative opinion as long as it didn't conflict with the current body of scientific knowledge and you could provide me with sources of verification.

You see Dustin, in science, it is not possible to personally validate every paper and experiment that comes out. At some point, you have to accept that peer-reviewed published results are actually reflecting experimental data and try to use that to build off of. If you were a scientist you would understand that some things have to be accepted on authority if progress is to be made. If other conflicting results are discovered later, then modifications can be made to current theories. This is science 101. Why don't you know this after posting on these forums for almost three years?

What do you mean "discuss it with me as an equal"? Are you claiming that the only way someone could have equal knowledge about evolution as "you" do is to be a biologist?

I mean that I could conduct the conversation as if I were talking to someone who understands the foundational tenets and theories of that particular discipline; someone who understands how science works. You don't appear to know much of anything about science. Thus, I have to talk to you as a layman and reexplain things that would be common sense to a scientist.

Do you know what a "hypothetical example" is? It's not supposed to be 100% factual. It's just supposed to be a rough point based on assumption to use as an example. It's like saying, "Ok, Imagine if I were falling at 55 mph..." This situation doesn't have to be real and it never needed to of happened. It's an "example" used to further a point.

"Hypothetical example" is not some sort of technical debating term. The way you use it, it means: "weasel way for explaining junk I pulled out of my butt to try to prove a point by stating it as factual, that later was shown to be completely incorrect."

So at this point, you have made a variety of claims on a board full of skeptics. These claims have been disputed (accurately) and you have failed to support or defend any of them. Shouldn't you site some evidence or abandon ship?

 

[athon]

You didn't answer my question.

So based on your definition of "subjective" which means 'taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world' would you argue that your thoughts aren't rational since they take place inside of your mind and not in the external world?

God, it's almost painful watching you so obviously struggle to build a strawman straw by straw.

Ok, let's unravel the definition of subjective. In its most pure form, it simply means 'of the mind', however most definitions of the term imply the role bias, emotional reasoning and personal preference has. The quickest of searches provides a site which has numerous definitions covering these; http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=...bjective&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

While rational thought can only occur within the mind (where else is it going to occur?) it in itself is a subjective process. Is it rational? Rational implies reason and logic, which in themselves are significant due to the fact that it is consistent in time. What is logical now is logical later. That is why we use reason - if I make a decision on an event in the future, I have the best chance of having the outcome of my decision be as predicted.

Subjective outcomes are open to inconsistancy as a result of the emotional and personal biases. Emotions change depending on the situation, hence if not taken into account (or treated as objective outcomes), decisions will not have predictable outcomes.

So, your question is poorly phrased and leading. Subjective thoughts are not what I'm talking about, but rather subjective outcomes. Aesthetics is a subjective outcome - it is a personal view. The fact that we should keep pandas because of aesthetic reasons is irrational. The fact that we should keep pandas as people currently like them, and we want to endeavour to make people happy, is rational.

Of course, the second statement needs to be verified quantitatively, but the essence of the argument is there.

Athon

 

[athon]

[dustin] spaghetti grows on pasta trees [/dustin]

no it doesn't - that's ridiculous.

[dustin] that statement wasn't supposed to be taken literally.[/dustin]

so it was wrong? Wholly ignorant of the topic? An idiotic thing to say?

[dustin] no it was a hypothetical example of what would happen if spaghetti grew on pasta trees [/dustin]

so we can't be confident that any of your statements are actually meant to be true?

[dustin] (repeat ad nauseum, until securing the last post on the matter, hence "winning" the argument) [/dustin]

You could always address how old you are though...you seem rather reticent on the issue....i wonder why?

I've wondered the same thing. I hope for his sake he's some adolescent who thinks he's doing well in junior science...

Athon

 

[CplFerro]

...Shouldn't you site some evidence or abandon ship?

Dear xingyifa,

All I have to contribute to this argument is that the word is spelled "cite" as in "citation" not "site" and "sitation."

Cheers,

Cpl Ferro

 

[xingyifa]

lol indeed.

 

[Old man]

Dustin, how old are you? Seriously....i have a working premise that you're about 16-17...

My best guess (formulated part way through page one) is that Dustin is a 15 - 16 year old girl who's just discovered 'love', is taking an Earth Science course taught by a young, hot 'enviromentalist', and now wants to save all of the those cute, fuzzy little animals that the rest of us just don't care enough about.

 

[Khyron]

my guess was that this "discussion" will drag into at least 40 pages, without ever really going anywhere, as we just argue about logical fallacies with Our Dear Dustin. I'll be back on page 40 if so.

My real input:

Extinctions of individual species don't matter for the most part. They only become important in two cases: certain "essential species" in various ecosystems whose loss puts the entire ecosystem out of business (Giant Sequoia, for example, shape the entire ecosystem they live in) or fragile "canary species" whose demise can be used to show threats to ecosystem health.

The former are rarely the latter, and the latter can only be worth conservation efforts in abstract ways. Assuming that a ecosystem is physically protected from development, effort should be spent on improving ecosystem health as a whole - e.g. ability to support the keystone species even if they aren't endangered - rather than striving to preserve the canaries. Since many ecosystems have multiple "essential" species, this can be challenging enough without having to try to save every single species.