"The meaning of the world is the separation of wish and fact." - KURT GÖDEL
"According to Peirce's doctrine of fallibilism, the conclusions of science are always tentative. The rationality of the scientific method does not depend on the certainty of its conclusions, but on its self-corrective character: by continued application of the method science can detect and correct its own mistakes, and thus eventually lead to the discovery of truth".
A guiding principle for accepting claims of catastrophic global events, miracles, incredible healing, invisible friends, or fill in the blank is:
“extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” - Carl Sagan
"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable." - H. L. Mencken
I would add irrational and highly delusional to the mix when faith requires one to accept magical violations of the well known, well tested or easily demonstrated laws of Nature. - PWL
"Science is Progress and the Future. Faith is regression to the Dark Ages." - PWL
“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.” - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
"Two important characteristics of maps should be noticed. A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness." - Alfred Korzybski
"Science is a search for basic truths about the Universe, a search which develops statements that appear to describe how the Universe works, but which are subject to correction, revision, adjustment, or even outright rejection, upon the presentation of better or conflicting evidence." - James Randi
"Hypotheses are nets: only he who casts will catch." - Novalis
"Nullius in verba. Take no one's word for it." - Motto of the Royal Society
"I'm trying to find out NOT how Nature could be, but how Nature IS." - Richard Feynman
"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin." - Thomas Henry Huxley
“A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth.” Albert Einstein
"Science is empirical. Knowing the answer means nothing. Testing your knowledge means everything." - Lawrence Krauss
"Skepticism is the agent of reason against organized irrationalism - and is therefore one of the keys to human social and civic decency." - Stephen Jay Gould
"Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work." - James Randi
Peter Gleick’s actions are shocking and atrocious, a sad event for standards in science where we see otherwise dedicated scientists violate their own integrity in furtherance of their belief stricken cause to save the Earth at all costs. It’s an unfortunate pattern of behavior that the end justifies the means.
By using fraud and deception Peter Gleick compromised himself. This is all too familiar in climate scientists dedicated to their cause above their commitment to the scientific method. Peter Gleick likely fancied himself, absurdly, as a whistle-blower of sorts, as DeSmog climate doomsday rapture cultists have characterized him justifying his criminal actions, but the facts now show that there was nothing of substance to the climate issues to be “blown”, just private information stolen in a crime against a think tank who disagrees with Gleick’s world view of CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture aka CAGW. Nothing to blow the whistle on thus Gleick’s acts are wholly criminal acts not qualifying for whistle-blower status.
The two Climate Gate incidents also fit this pattern but on a much larger scale where an entire clutch of climate scientists, Dr. Mann, Dr. Hansen, Dr, Jones, Dr. Briffa, Dr. Threnbreth, et al., as is evident by the two sets of Climate Gate Emails, had a similar ongoing conspiracy to fudge their numbers, defraud the public, violate the scientific method using secret political actions to block publication of papers, coordinating their actions to the benefit of their pet hypothesis, CAGW, to the benefit of their careers, to the benefit of their funding, to the benefit of their “cause” rather than to the benefit of science or to the benefit of the public paying their bills.
It is obvious that an insider having observed these suspect activities of scientific fraud and cronyism and the resulting gaming of the data to bias towards CAGW plus the fact that funding monies where clearly involved as motivation to career and person adds in the suspect activities of potential criminal fraud not only across state lines but across international borders as well.
The role of the whistle-blower is typically reserved for insiders who observe highly unethical and or criminal behavior going on in an organization who then reports such events and crimes to the public for action by those with the legal obligation to act accordingly and responsibly. Some countries even provide legal protections for such “honest” whistle-blowers who side on the side of doing the right thing rather than letting the crimes continue.
The direct comparison of these two events, ClimateGate and Gleick Fake Gate, leaves one with the bitter taste that, unfortunately, there are many climate scientists willing to engage in unethical actions even crossing the line into scientific fraud (fabrication of data is a no no Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann) and advancing their own careers using deception (hiding the decline is a big no no Dr. Mann) and, now evidently clearly criminal acts of identity theft, social hacking misrepresentation deception passing oneself as a board member of an organization one is not a member of nor a board member of, receiving stolen documents across state lines for wire fraud, and likely many more charges will be identified as this story develops and unfolds, not to mention the loss of scientific integrity and violating ones commitment to the scientific method and nuking one’s own career with a Tsar Bomba in the process.
So two major cases, Climate Gate I & II (with III in the wind) and Gleick Fake Gate have shown the criminal aniled minds of climate science are active and willing to break the laws that help to keep civilization civil and worse they routinely break the rules of the scientific method claiming they are under attack. Well dah! If you can’t stand the heat get out of the lab!
Science is about testing all claims of hypotheses put forward, it’s the science that is being “attacked” since it’s not hard science of the order of f=ma or e=mc^2. If these two equations had the lack of “predictive value” of the climate science statistical virtual models we’d not be able to build sky scrapers safely let alone have humans visit the moon and robotic probes explore the solar system and beyond!
There is a serious quantitative failure of the field of climate science to keep it self rooted in hard science, sure they put up space satellites and take observations, but it’s the climate scientists methods of analysis that are the key problems (when the frauds and blatant politics are removed that is) they have an over reliance on statistical games and statistical models that disconnect many if not most of their results from the Actual Real Atmosphere and Climate of this Small Blue Marble known as Earth.
“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” – Ernest Rutherford
Rutherford’s Rule of Experiments is a very concise and elegant filter that separates true hard science from pseudo sciences such as Climate Science.
Judith Curry hits the head on the nail with Gleick’s [lack of] Integrity: when one “perceives with passion” that the Earth is at risk one’s emotions lead one to compromise ones values and self; and in the case of scientists it seems that shows up as a Passion Bias or a Dedication Bias or as commonly known, Confirmation Bias, but to that we can now add Compromise Bias: these are all the blatant ignoring of the counter evidence that has a damn good habit of falsifying the many claims of CAGW.
What makes a Bad Scientist? What makes a Good Scientist? What makes a Great Scientist? How well they adhere to the scientific method and how well they can shift their point of view to consider what others are telling them. Also being honest and not using deception or fraud is a baseline essential commitment. Read the rest of this entry »
OK, stop the presses, there is an article about study done by NCAR on the simulation of winds and how that might move water in dramatic ways. That is all fine and good except for the connection to the following religious notions and the fact that US Government Funds were used in this obviously religious study in violation of the strict Separation of Church and State in the USA.
“The parting of the waters described in the book of Exodus that enabled Moses and the Israelites to escape the pharaoh’s army is possible, computer simulations run by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado at Boulder show.
To test the theory that the biblical account may have depicted actual events, the researchers studied maps of the region, archaeological records and satellite measurements to find a topographical feature where such an event might have been possible. They settled on an area south of the Mediterranean Sea where some oceanographers say a branch of the Nile River drained into what was called the Lake of Tanis, a coastal lagoon 3,000 years ago. Read the rest of this entry »
“When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are to entering to possess, and drives out before you many nations, and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy. Do not all any of them to live. This is what you are to do to them: break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their trees and burn them in the fire. For you are a people chosen by the Lord over all others on the face of the Earth.” – From the Old Testament of the Bible, Deuteronomy 7: 1-2, 5-6.
When God is on our side we can commit any crime. We are absolved individually from that crime by believing that we have a higher sanction and that is the danger of religion in that it allows people to do that, it allows them to kill without a shred of conscience. ” – Kevin Annett, former minister
Kevin Annett was expelled from the United Church for bring this matter of their crimes to their attention. Finally a priest with some actual ethics and morals who wouldn’t take it up the ass from his church hierarchy. Read the rest of this entry »
“Adnan Oktar (born Ankara, February 2, 1956), also known by his pen name, Harun Yahya, is a Turkish proponent of Islamic creationism, anti-Zionism,[1] and, more particularly, supports Old Earth creationism.[2][3] Oktar denounces Zionism as racism and Freemasonry, and Darwinism as the source of terrorism.[4] He has created controversies in the past few years by sending out thousands of unsolicited texts advocating Islam and creationism to schools and colleges in several European countries and USA.[3][5] Oktar had defended his views by litigation; he is responsible for the blocking of numerous, high-profile Web sites in Turkey. Read the rest of this entry »
“Jesus Never Saved Anyone From Dying, Not Even Himself. Three Day Rotting Dead Corpses Shall Not Rise From The Dead, So Sayest Natural Biology! Sorry Zombie Fans.“
Actual Science vs Faith in Anthropomorphic Global Warming Climate Change (click to enlarge).
“One of the key features of Hansen’s global warming theory is that the polar regions are supposed to warm much faster than the rest of the planet. The image below is from his classic 1984 paper, and shows that Antarctica is supposed to warm up 6C after a doubling of CO2. If the cooling trend which UAH shows continues, it will take Antarctica a very long time to warm up six degrees.” – [1]
There is very little difference between what Hansen is doing and the old time soothsayers. Sure Hansen has computers with which to ply his magical tricks of math and dead tree entrails are at the core of his “dire doomsday” climate predictions. It’s the same old confidence game just different means of deception.
The profound deep arrogance of man is revealed in the self imposed delusional mythological belief systems from the Bronze Ages. Many people, purportedly the vast majority of people on Earth, believe that the universe was created for man. How arrogant. How sad. The cartoon above says it well.
Let’s get it through our thick skulls. The universe wasn’t created for human beings. We simple evolved here fighting and clawing our way from sub-cellular life to multi-cellular all the way up to human being. To say that the universe was created for us is so insulting to our ancestors that it isn’t funny- it does them a deep disrespect for it says that their struggle in the continuous chain of life from them to us was unnecessary and make believe just to suit the whims of some arrogant God that want’s to toy with us for his/her/it’s own designs.
Anyone who truly gets the notion of freedom and independence must reject the notions of arrogance implied and supported by the profoundly horrific self conceited notion that the universe was created for us.
Pat Robertson says the Haitians are “cursed” due to a deal with the devil made to get out from “under the heal of the French” and that this earthquake is payment on that deal with the devil. WTF?
Yup, here’s what Pat Robertson, a truly compassionate person, had to say:
“Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you will get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it’s a deal.
And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other. Desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It is cut down the middle on the one side is Haiti the other is the Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have and we meed to pray for them a great turning to god and out of this tragedy I’m optimistic something good may come.” – Pat Robertson, Evil Slimy Opportunist MF
Pat Robertson is an evil immoral man spinning his bronze age belief stricken mythology at people in their time of need due to a Natural disaster.
If there is any curse it is in the existence of Pat Robertson’s horrific mindset.
The scammer Pat Robertson is proof that God can’t exist and that opportunistic vile evil men can, will and do take advantage of people’s inability to set aside primitive superstitious beliefs.
The following video shows the results of a deep programming and cult inculcation of a “radical ecological green” belief system. This deep devotional commitment is in part fostered during a long period of fasting and indoctrination with fellow cult members. It is very disturbing as it reveals a deeply commuted individual that would be willing to take just about any action in “the revolution”.
“Ecological Sustainability is an absolute unequivocal non-negotiable necessity. … Long Live the Revolution!” – “Paul”, a member of the Cult of Ecological Sustainability aka “Climate Justice”
A very dangerous video for anyone who falls for it. At the end under the increasing music he utters “Long Live the Revolution!”.
The deep and disturbing power of belief in ecological sustainability at any cost forms the foundation of The Potently Dangerous Militant Cult of Ecological Sustainability.
“In the United States of America, unfortunately we [alarmists] still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate [for the ends to justify the means and thus] to have an over-representation of factual presentations [aka exaggerate aka lie aka ignore counter evidence aka commit fraud] on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore in an interview.”
I wonder if there will come a time when Al Gore is so marginalized for this cult of doom views that he’s stop spouting this nonsense. Maybe criminal charges against him for yelling fire (aka global warming) in crowded movie theaters world wide would be effective.
Of course it’s obvious now that Al Gore’s business interests in Generational Investment Management aka Blood & Gore (yes his business partner’s name is David Blood, really) are what is driving Al Gore’s continual doom and gloom marketing spin trip.
“It’s … a very serious breach of how true science is done. … Scientists worldwide will begin to realize how prosecuting authorities are beginning to move in on them and particularly those who have profited, or profiteered rather, by peddling false and exaggerated science whether they are scientists themselves, politicians or people in the environmental movement who have been exaggerating the supposed threat of climate change in the way that we now know that the University of East Anglia (UEA/CRU Climategate, Phil Jones, Mann, et. al.) was doing. If that is a widespread problem then the fraud authorities are also going to be moving in on the UEA and on the scientists linked with them in what looks like a small tightly controlled conspiracy to bend, falsify and exaggerate the supposed problem of climate change.” – Christopher Monckton
Christopher Monckton has been asking Al Gore to debate him, Al has been silent to these requests.
Al Gore, Monckton is coming for yeah and it won’t be to debate anymore, he’s coming for you Al with a pair of bracelets. What you gonna do when they come for you Al baby?
Christopher Monckton has suggested that anyone financially benefiting from the “global warming fraud” financially, such as Al Gore who stands to become a “first billionaire from carbon“, be gone after with “racketeering laws” in the USA and the new “fraud laws” in England. It is interesting to note that Al Gore does have a sizable stake (reportedly 16 million shares) in Camco International Limited (CAMIN.L) (London Stock Exchange), a carbon credit trading company out of England, which happens to be Monckton’s home turf.
“The belief that the ends justifies the means may be the true root of all evil.” – Troy Brumley
“Al Gore, First Emperor of the Moon, Head Authority on Mann-Made Climate Change“
Three men assaulted by goons under orders from Al Gore.
Does Al Gore still think he has sovereign powers as an ex-president? Where does Al Gore get off illegally forcibly assaulting people who ask him questions he doesn’t like? I know of nothing in the US Constitution that would permit a private citizen to use force as was done here multiple times.
The evidence shows that Al Gore considers questions on Climategate and AGW from non-violent people to be an imminent security threat as he orders his (secret service?) security detail to forcibly remove three people who ask inconvenient questions Mr Gore doesn’t like.
“CHICAGO IL – On Tuesday, November 24th 2009, We Are Change Chicago attended a book signing with former vice president Al Gore, at the Borders Bookstore on 150 N. State Street.
…
First up was Saad Ali. As he approached Gore, he peacefully and respectably asked, “Sir, can you comment on the emails and documents that were hacked [ClimateGate] that reveal… that the research was a fraud and that it was all manipulated?” Gore, with an evil smirk, claimed that “he never read them.” By the look on his face and his stutter, it became quite clear that Gore was extremely uncomfortable with the question, so he quickly glared towards his security. The agents grabbed and assaulted Saad, escorting him away from Gore for merely asking a simple question. The press took notice and started filming and snapping pictures of what was going on. One of which appeared the next day in the Chicago Sun Times.”
This of course isn’t the first time that Al Gore has used intimidation and assault to stifle free debate and free speech of his critics as these following videos testify to.
All belief is religion as belief isn’t based upon verifiable knowledge.
“A United Kingdom court has ruled that a man can take his employer to court on the grounds that he was discriminated against because of his views on climate change. …
Mr Nicholson successfully argued that his moral values about the environment should be recognised under the same laws that protect religious beliefs.
In the landmark ruling, Justice Michael Burton said that a belief in man-made climate change is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the religion and belief regulations.” Beliefs on climate like Religion, court rules
The word “belief” is a problematic word with so many definitions that you have to pretty much define what you mean either by the context or by direction definition.
Generally when I’m down on the word belief I specifically mean “religious belief” or “supernatural belief” and not a belief that my car is still parked where it is.
I don’t think it’s responsible to say that “I believe in Newton’s Gravity Theory” as to use the word belief to talk about facts mis-communicates to the masses of people out there without scientific training. It’s better to use other words. Your “belief” that letting go of a stone has nothing to do with whether or not the stone falls.
Common uses of belief basically mean that you don’t know or don’t have evidence and that you assume it is true anyway. Since you do have evidence that dropping a stone on earth will have it fall (unless it’s otherwise supported or blocked) using the word belief is a mistake. One instead should say “I know that when I let go of a stone at chest level, it will fall (assuming that it’s not supported or blocked in some other manner).” This has clarity.
It is a big mistake for Richard Dawkins to be using the word belief the way he does with regards to scientific knowledge. He should be more careful and define his terms more precisely when talking about scientific knowledge and what is know and what isn’t since the religious masses use the word belief differently.
Sure people have a “belief” that X person will be a good political leader, but that is an entirely different category and meaning of belief than “belief that god exists” which is a statement that has no evidence and will never have any evidence in all probability not even mentioning all the evidence against the possibility of any gods existing.
As for climate change caused by man the science isn’t settled and if you think it is that is your “belief” and not a valid scientific statement. The more I learn the more I learn that we don’t yet have conclusive answers and that politics of extreme environmentalism started it and now that mainstream politicians have gotten into the act it’s now even more highly suspect. So I’d say show the evidence in a context where it can be audited by anyone which means showing all the data, raw and manipulated, detailed and comprehensive explanations for the manipulations, the statistics methods involved and why they were chosen, the software and the data used to create the graphs, all the scientists notes, photographs, and other materials used in the preparation of all the science papers. It’s clear that climate scientists (and others) have not been up to the standards of other fields and that all publically funded science needs to have it’s standards of openness and auditability raised.
I’m a very strong show me the hard evidence guy. Belief has no place in science nor in the communication of science nor in the science education process unless it specifically means “we think it could be true or false but we don’t just know yet”.
Believing that murder is wrong is a statement of one’s moral values and the word belief is often used although I’d question it’s use there. I’d not say it that way. I’d rather be more specific and say that “Murder is wrong because human life is valuable.”
Is saying “gravity sucks” a statement of “belief” or is it a succinct statement of the known laws of Gravity? I pick the latter.
“The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true. … Later epistemologists have questioned the “justified true belief” definition, and some philosophers have questioned whether “belief” is a useful notion at all.” – wikipedia
So “belief” is shaky ground at best, and as such it’s best to avoid using it when speaking generally about science or anything that is a statement of objective reality or it’s nature. I also use it carefully. My main use is in talking about the belief and faith stricken members of society.
Is that my belief? No, it’s a precautionary guidance principle based on knowledge gained from far too many conversations with the belief stricken who set well placed linguistic and philosophical traps.
Climate change belief given same legal status as religion In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that “a belief in man-made climate change … is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations“.
An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.
Facts do not matter anymore as belief in global warming is now officially recognized as a nutter religion!
(All religions are anti-scientific since they require faith above facts of Nature and Nature always wins thus the supernatural religions are false).
The Religion of Climate Change
He’s close “belief in human caused climate change is a religion” but it’s not that they’ll believe in anything its’ that they put “belief” above reason and facts and they’ve been convinced by the likes of Al Gore. It is not the lack of a belief in god that is the problem it is belief itself that is the problem, belief in god, belief in climate change caused by man (aka Mann) that is the real problem. When you are willing to “believe” rather that use reason to examine the facts of Nature that is when you take the irresponsible “leap of faith” into the land of being belief stricken with something that is more likely simply wrong than even having a hint of being right. Critical thinking and reason and the scientific method and open science with peer review by anyone are the tools we need to move forward as a society. Not belief in something. Belief and faith are the great mind killers and possibly the death of civilization as well.
The Religion of Climate Change, UN Ki Moon Cult
Yes indeed, sober scientific based discussion still has it’s place. No science is ever settled. If you think climate science is settled then you don’t know about the facts of climate science as much as you think you do. Not only that, but you also don’t understand the scientific method nor science eduction. Questions are essential of all science at all stages. To suppress discussion is anti-scientific.
To make scientific questions such as “mann made climate change” into a religion based upon belief is the height of insanity and irresponsible governance by the court and anyone else.
Over a period of 28 hours or so this long weekend I had a conversation with someone, CK, I met on Face Book who shared a common technical interest. We had a number of other exchanges with each other over the past few months but this one was different partly for it’s brutal honesty and partly since CK choose to jump out of what was likely the most important conversation of his life.
I managed to save a copy of the conversation moments before CK deleted my access (it was on his wall) and thus ending the conversation with us two. Likely he’s busy gathering agreement with his friends that I’m an evil no good person when in fact it’s likely that I’m one of his best new friends he’s ever had. Be that as it may, here is a non edited transcript (spelling corrections were made). Oh, from what I can tell CK is a young adult male with a gay lover and a roman catholic upbringing.
I hope this helps when talking with religious delusionals of all sorts but christians in particular since we deal with dispensing the christian miracle mythologies here.
I’ll add comments and expand my responses and even critique my own responses over the next few weeks or so as I have time to reread the transcript below and think longer it.
All the best and live long and prosper in peace. Your feed back and comments are appreciated.
PWL
ps. This Jesus and Mo comic is appropriate since CK’s solution for “resolving the incompatibilities” between science and religion is to become insane by fully embracing “cognitive dissonance” and not working to resolve the conflict even though he claims to work towards that end. More on this in the conversation. He also, as you will see, negotiates his way between these two incompatibilities by accepting part of Objectivism (it’s basic three axioms of existence, identity and consciousness) while maintaining his “faithful belief” in his invisible super friends even though acknowledging that objectivism provides “proof” that there are no gods other than those in human minds. Thus CK’s religious driven insanity.
CK: just wants to find SOMEONE who shares his philosophies… lol
PWL: What philosophy are yours?
CK: Except for the stance on matters of sexuality and religion, I’m a staunch objectivist. Go Ayn Rand!
I believe cognitive dissonance is the greatest evil in the universe.
That’s a good start to the summary. In essence, I believe you must accept a small set of axioms as true, and then use inductive logic based on that. If only I could put my axioms in words… lol
PWL: I am also a big fan of Ayn Rand.
People do work well together and can in many circumstances work towards their mutual benefit.
What do you mean by cognitive dissonance?
I’m confused by your sexuality considering you seem to be very catholic… seems mutually incompatible to me.
I’m confused by your religious stance and Ayn Rand, objectivism proves that your mythical god doesn’t exist and is just an artifact of your mind wanting comfort or what not. So you’re not a staunch objectivist if you believe in the mythical invisible super beings and thus the supernatural realm.
The real world doesn’t care about our philosophies since it doesn’t care about anything.
They are not axioms if they are not in words…
BUT then Leaps of Faith know no boundaries or limits and ignore any that are pointed out. That is the essential nature of a leap of faith, it destroys actual rational thinking with the emotional non-rational leap of faith.
“Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The “ideas” or “cognitions” in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one’s behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.” – Cognitive Dissonance.
So if you believe “cognitive dissonance” is the greatest evil in the universe why do you practice it?
Why do you consider it evil?
MD: wow :{
CK: Sexuality: Rand didn’t exactly believe they should wait until they found the right one, and then stay with them the rest of their life. Yes, objectivism does reject the almighty.
When I say cognitive dissonance, I mean holding two apparently exclusive beliefs wihout batting an eye — it’s an offense to reason. In my case (objectivist Catholic), although you’d think they are exclusive, but the reason I believe they are not is that I do not blindly believe — I observe the positive effects of faith, I observe the evidence of miracles, and I make judgments for myself. I consider the beliefs and try to reason and justify them.
If I were to just say, “well, it is” THEN faith and reason would be exclusive. But to examine faith and try to reason about it, why you believe it even when you know science, then you have used reason. You just use inductive logic rather than deductive logic.
PWL: Actually you must use actual repeatable verifiable evidence not logic or some belief stricken dogma system…
As the saying goes you are mistaken about a great many things CK.
There are no real positive effects of faith that are not available without faith!
Al Gore has Crossed the Rubicon with his latest statements comparing Anthropogenic Global Warming (aka Human Caused Climate Change) to the battle against Nazi’s.
Godwin’s Law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation coined by Mike Godwin in 1990, and which has become an … adage. It states: “As a … discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
Al Gore has now achieved this critical turning point fully committed forever and can no longer retreat back across his own river Rubicon.
the “Last Page” columnist in The Smithsonian stated that when an adversary uses an inappropriate Hitler or Nazi comparison, “you have only to say ‘Godwin’s Law’ and a trapdoor falls open, plunging your rival into a pool of hungry crocodiles.
When one stoops to using a Nazi comparison in a serious debate one is basically admitting that one no longer has any serious arguments left in one’s quiver. Al Gore committed a serious error in the ways of debate, he admitted that he has no serious arguments by stooping so low.
If you don’t believe in global warming aka climate change aka we humans did it then your a Nazi and since you’re a Nazi you are a criminal and since it’s a war you can be shot. That is the implication of Gore’s thinking taken to the extremes that some might want.
So duck, the real climate wars are coming. Being armed with the facts doesn’t seem to matter any more. Now they’ll seek out and destroy Nazi Climate Deniers!
It’s really interesting to me that so many people blindly follow people like Al Gore without even looking into whether or not what he is saying has any basis in the actual reality we live in rather than the imagined reality in their heads.
Maybe Al Gore and his Nazi’s are doing us all all favor by showing how radical and radically stupid he is being? Could this be a turning point in the debate? Could Al Gore have crossed the Rubicon, the point of no return? Yes. This is a critical turning point in the debate about climate. Fear mongering from the likes of Al Gore verse actual science grounded in objective reality!
Indeed, while 1998 was the warmest or second-warmest year on record, no year since has been as warm. And while there have been more warm years than cool ones in the past decade-and-a-half, the trend, since at least 2003, has been downward.
And — this is the one I really like — according to climatedepot.com,since Al Gore released his movie An Inconvenient Truth in October 2006, the Earth’s temperature has lost 0.74F, almost exactly the amount the UN’s climate panel claims was gained in the entire 20th century. The latter stat is apropos of nothing. As a correlation of Al Gore’s bombast vs. worldwide temperature averages, it is pure fluke. But you can bet that if there had been a similar rise in the past 33 months, the headlines would be blaring that the end of the world was near.
The extremely high dilutions in homeopathy have been a main point of criticism. Homeopaths believe that the methodical dilution of a substance, beginning with a 10% or lower solution and working downwards, with shaking after each dilution, produces a therapeutically active “remedy”, in contrast to therapeutically inert water. However, homeopathic remedies are usually diluted to the point where there are no molecules from the original solution left in a dose of the final remedy.[81] Since even the longest-lived noncovalent structures in liquid water at room temperature are only stable for a few picoseconds,[87] critics have concluded that any effect that might have been present from the original substance can no longer exist.[88] No evidence of stable clusters of water molecules was found when homeopathic remedies were studied using NMR.[89]
Furthermore, since water will have been in contact with millions of different substances throughout its history, critics point out that any glass of water is therefore an extreme dilution of almost any conceivable substance, and so by drinking water one would, according to homeopathic principles, receive treatment for every imaginable condition.[90]
Practitioners of homeopathy contend that higher dilutions (fewer potential molecules in each dose) result in stronger medicinal effects. This idea is inconsistent with the observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs, where the effects are dependent on the concentration of the active ingredient in the body.[82] This dose-response relationship has been confirmed in multitudinous experiments on organisms as diverse as nematodes,[91] rats,[92] and humans.[93]
Physicist Robert L. Park, former executive director of the American Physical Society, has noted that
“since the least amount of a substance in a solution is one molecule, a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water. This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth.”
Park has also noted that “to expect to get even one molecule of the ‘medicinal’ substance allegedly present in 30X pills, it would be necessary to take some two billion of them, which would total about a thousand tons of lactose plus whatever impurities the lactose contained“.
The laws of chemistry state that there is a limit to the dilution that can be made without losing the original substance altogether. This limit, which is related to Avogadro’s number, is roughly equal to homeopathic potencies of 12C or 24X (1 part in 1024).
Killing your child with the delusional beliefs of Homeopathy:
Going to jail for killing your child with the delusional beliefs of Homeopathy:
What? The AGW (anthropogenic global warming) hypothesis says that the radiation is being kept IN by the C02 in the atmosphere… thus it matters not that it’s reflected back into space by white surfaces on the SURFACE of the Earth SINCE they ARE well within and UNDER the green house gas layers of the atmosphere (not counting the painting of mount everest et. al.)! Dah!
What kind of bizarro world is this where the radiation can be reflected back and NOT be stopped by the VERY C02 (and other) GREEN HOUSE GASES that are the problem?
I guess we’re going to use magic white paint to tell the photons that hit the magic white roofs that they are special photons and that they have a pass to magically not be blocked by the green house gases in the atmosphere on their way out.
Now that’s a good business to be in, selling magic white paint.
It is the height of nonsense coming out of Chu’s brain as you can’t have it both ways there Steve and Al, either the green house gasses keep the radiation trapped in OR they don’t! Which will it be?
If the green house gasses can’t keep the heat radiation in then it follows that AWG is now proven false by Chu’s statement.
If the green house gases do keep in the heat radiation then AWG might have some tiny probability of being true AND Steven Chu’s been proven an idiot for wanting to paint the world a 1984 gray.
I don’t know about you but in Canada we like it toasty thus darker colors for buildings are better to keep it warm in the winter and use less energy for heating.
White buildings in the southern regions closer to the equator make sense to keep the buildings cooler in the heat that is there most of the time.
Saving the use of energy makes a lot of sense but why confuse the issue with bad science and terrible environmental notions that this somehow has to do with the sketchy AWG hypothesis?
It’s also nice to Chu to finally acknowledge that the Sun does in fact play a role in heating the earth.
Interesting how mind numbingly stupid this notion as presented by Chu is.
In every way imaginable, that is real, science and objective humanism obliterates not just religion but the need for religion as well. Objective Reality, Nature, what is real verses what is fantasy and delusional beliefs that an invisible super being that violates all of, or the vast majority of, the known and well tested laws of science, laws of Nature, and even the nature of Nature is very clear.
Dead bodies don’t rise from the dead once brain death, organ death, heart death, and cell death have set in – not even in modern hospitals can that be achieved. The only gods that exist are the ones within the skulls of believers, the fantasy gods that they construct to avoid the harsh facts of life: that they, that all, will die the permanent death without any life after death. Even the memories of our lives left behind with those still alive will fade with time and the passing of the ages. Even the Earth and all that is on it will perish given time and celestial events in our solar system.
That which makes us unique in space and time and in biology passes into oblivion from whence we came in time. There is no hope of an eternal salvation. Hope itself is a great killer of minds. The kind of hope that supports delusional thinking that that which is impossible in Nature can happen, that hope dooms you and all to a path of delusional fantasies of rising dead bodies, of the doom of death avoided, of walking on water, of all the other miracles that require the other great killer of minds and free will, faith.
Pernicious faith, the evil of the ages roosting within the dark minds of it’s committed adherents. Faith the denier of objective reality. Faith the denier of that which is real and the limits of reality. The dead only come back to life in zombie movies and other silly mythologies only most people can tell that zombie movies are fantasy yet for some reason those same people can’t tell that their jesus is also just a fantasy delusion of epic proportions. The act of faith kills the best minds and brings them into the fold of the cult of death that each and every religion or faith on earth represents. A cult focused on selling life immortal if only you’d make your donations as a good member. The greatest con game perpetrated upon the human species by their fellows.
Oh, I went to the midnight showing of the action fantasy film, “Angels & Demons”. As far as action goes, it’s got that in spades. Intrigue, for sure. Suspense, yup. Delusional fantasies, absolutely tons of delusionals all over the screen spouting their silly beliefs of gods and demons. They even have a pope as an action figure! Never saw that one coming! Overall a good movie if you can stomach the religious nonsense and not take any of it seriously; if you do you know that you’re beyond the typical religious delusional and are into the total nut job category. They even have a really big boom. I’ll have to say that the cinematography was awesome but the music was one of the best parts of the film. Yes, it’s pretty much 24 meets the Vatican conspiracy chest of delusions. Bright light, bright light.
Of course the movie opens with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and spins a technobabble story with, oh scary, antimatter! Yikes. How about some real science to correct the silly myths that Angels & Demons took extreme liberties with.
Don’t know if this last one qualifies as science but what the heck.
Many of the sentences in the bible and beliefs uttered at church are in fact designed to be rules that the congregation – aka cult members – can use to identify members of the cult and to more importantly identify those who are not members of the cult and to whom they can treat differently, often harshly differently with torture, murder, rape, death and nasty killing methods. The koran does this with us heathen atheists and anti-theists. The bible does it with the quote above and many others.
Actually what it is giving is a practical and effective rule for keeping members of a cult, any cult, in the cult when their family comes to attempt to save them from their doom as a member of the cult. The cult makes it ok to murder your own family members if they try to extract you out of the cult or to not follow the leadership of the cult “lord”, whomever that might be: jesus, hitler, stalin, bush, jones, the pope, … the list is essentially endless although groups without this don’t count.
Thanks, I’ll be using to in a very important letter to my evangelical young earth creationist zombie jesus death cult focused preacher sister to put into her own “literal” taking of the bible how and why she obliterated my relationships with over eighteen people in my family. It’s her faith that destroyed our family of eight siblings, a still living mother, and all the inlaws and their offspring. Very sad situation which this passage clarifies directly to the heart of it. Thanks. Peace.
Ridley Scott is talking about what preachers do with religion without any evidence. How is it that so many people are so convinced by their imagined god stories? Read the rest of this entry »
Caring about the earth to their deaths? Wouldn’t the earth be better served without their sacrifice of toes, limbs, and lives (should it come to that)? They are supposedly highly trained scientists after all, aren’t they? No point throwing away their lives for an unproven belief, is there?
Isn’t fear mongering fun? Let’s have at their fear mongering then… here we go.
Oops… it’s getting cold again, how inconvenient…
Oh, there is the latest satellite phone interview with the Survey from Earth Day.
Graphic pictures of almost lost toes follow… ick… very gorey… really ick… plus more videos…
YECs = Young Earth Creationists. Those that think the universe is six days old, where six days is about 6,000 to 10,000 years give or take a few minutes.
Scientists, those that actually test their ideas against objective reality and who are willing to adapt to the verifiable facts of existence given what is REAL in NATURE!
Unfortunately one of my sisters and her husband, and even at least a couple of her kids, are sucked into this vile Hovind style of religious death cult that sucks the life out of them with the whacked in the head delusional beliefs. It’s quite sad really.
Even people who believe in Darwin can have delusional beliefs such as this Christian narrator of this BBC show “Did Darwin Kill God?”. Of course it does, it’s the last nail in the cross!
WARNING DELUSIONAL MATERIAL PRELEVANT IN THIS SERIES OF VIDEOS!!! DON’T LET YOUR BRAIN FALL OUT OF YOUR HEAD WITH THESE CRAZY DELUSIONAL BELIEFS OF GOD.
A really great series of videos that hit back slicing and dicing the silly inane beliefs of creationists with hard hitting science. As someone with a sister and brother in law who are young earth rapture creationist preachers this series of videos is excellent potential deprogramming materials for the creationist delusional insanity. Enjoy.
These videos were made for the communal and greater good. All these videos are copyright free for educational purposes, feel free to mirror these videos with or without accreditation. Part of a series of videos exposing the funny stupidity of creationists and why they deserve to be laughed at. In each case the creationist statements are shown to be outrageously stupid by even the most rudimentary knowledge of science. Creationist are tackled at every level from the scientific illiterates like venomfangx who want to play in the scientific arena but don’t even understand the words they use, to convicted fraudsters like Kent Hovind who abuse the scientifical illiteracy of people like venomfangx to dupe them out of money. An enterprise which is clearly very successful as merely the tax Hovind didn’t pay was about a million dollars. Hovind himself has no discernible academic education, and gets by solely on using his confident delivery of scientific terms to convince his audiences that he knows what hes talking about. Then of course there are the professional such as the Discovery Institute, the hub and founders of the Intelligent design movement. After the humiliating rout of ID in court where it was found that ‘ID is not science’, and that ‘ID is only a relabelling of creationism’ the Discovery Institute do not utter the word once in their latest promotional video. Instead they now have decided to ‘teach the controversy’ which is an irony as they are the only people who disagree with evolution. What they are really asking is not to teach the controversy, but to teach their views, which are supported by neither research or evidence, in schools.
Any video with nuclear explosions gets headlined on the first page and has my blessing!
What is clear however is the notion of objective reality as distinct from ourselves. While this isn’t an idea original to Rand it’s the key notion in her objectivism that forms the foundation for the rest which can be taken or cast aside.
The three core axioms of Existence, Consciousness and Identity are irreducible. And again these ideas are not original to Rand.
Yet the combination of these ideas and others is unique to Rand and that is her value to humanity.
“The not-so-good news is that in a “compromise,” the board also voted to require that students “in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations… including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.”
Excellent! Science is all about the pursuit of the truth of objective reality. Every assumption needs to be questioned otherwise it’s not science but rather it’s dogma if you’re not allowed to question the science.
“Score one for the Discovery Institute.”
Utter NONSENSE. These and other anti-science and anti-science-education crowds LOST in Texas: Discovery Institute, Intelligent Designer proponents, Creationists, Religionists, Our-Science-is-Correct-and-we-Don’t-Have-to-Prove-It-And-If-You-Ask-Questions-You’re-Automatically-A-Denier and Delusionals of all sorts had a huge loss.
Asking questions leads people to give up their delusions if they get the power of asking questions. Sure some imaginary friend delusionals will use that to attempt to push their religious agenda but in the end what will happen is that the battle ground shifts to critical thinking skills where it belongs!
Sharpen your pencils girls and boys and get ready to educate people who don’t know about science, about your field of science, in the ways and means of science, the scientific method and critical thinking skills.
The fostering of asking questions and learning to think that my Roman Catholic parents encouraged in me helped me deprogram their attempts to bring me into their faith. Thank ERG (pardon the expression) for all those science books at home and at school.
Without getting the power of critical thinking anyone is lost in today’s world of magical claims, weird fake science, television, government, bogus medical claims, con men of all kinds, parents, friends and family who are constantly attempting to pull you into their delusions.
Every CULTure you interact with has it’s own delusions and often those are the very ones that people use to justify their killing of others one way or the other. Do you even know how many different CULTureS you’re embedded within? How many? How can you tell? What are the beliefs of your CULTure? How do they blind you?
The Human Belief Engine we call the brain-mind is the culprit not what is in a book and the sooner that people realize that the better. Critical thinking skills are the only path to knowledge devoid of delusions, or at least with minimized delusions, about objective reality.
“According to Peirce’s doctrine of fallibilism, the conclusions of science are always tentative. The rationality of the scientific method does not depend on the certainty of its conclusions, but on its self-corrective character: by continued application of the method science can detect and correct its own mistakes, and thus eventually lead to the discovery of truth”.
A guiding principle for accepting claims of catastrophic global events, miracles, incredible healing, invisible friends, or _fill_in_the_blank_ is:
“extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” – Carl Sagan
Sagan’s Principle applies to ALL FIELDS OF SCIENCE as well as ALL wacko claims by non-scientists. To say differently is to assert that any part of science should not be questioned! Asking questions is the fundamental core of science.
“Two important characteristics of maps should be noticed. A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness.” – Alfred Korzybski
“Science is a search for basic truths about the Universe, a search which develops statements that appear to describe how the Universe works, but which are subject to correction, revision, adjustment, or even outright rejection, upon the presentation of better or conflicting evidence.” – James Randi
Yes, I’d have to agree with Knuth that “The Lord’s Understanding is Unsearchable” but not because I agree with Knuth’s meaning but because by viewing the meaning from my frames of reference it’s clear that no Lord exists thus it’s understanding isn’t searchable – you can’t search that which doesn’t exist, now can you?
It’s amazing that humans can invent something, The Lord, and then speak about it as if it’s real. This is one of the wonders of the brain, it’s ability to invent realities that are in reality fantasies that don’t even pretend to connect with the actual reality of Nature were we exist. That’s what is so wonderful about science and the scientific method, it takes the notion of testing our notions against Nature to see insights into the otherwise ineffable qualities of existence. It’s too bad that Knuth chooses to ignore reality when it comes to his spiritual existence. Maybe it’s not that he chooses, maybe it’s that he’s inflicted and has no choice?
Professor Donald Knuth visits Google’s Mountain View, CA headquarters to discuss the interactions between faith and science. This event took place on March 16, 2009, as part of the Authors@Google series.
In the fall of 1999, Donald was invited to give six public lectures at MIT on the general subject of relations between faith and science, during which he touched upon such topics as the interaction of randomization and religion, language translation, art and aesthetics, and the 3:16 project. During his talk at Google, Donald will similarly be focusing on the interactions between faith and science.
Unfortunately this talk demonstrates how clearly insane and delusional Professor Knuth turns out to be. Clearly he’s not thought out many of the issues that were presented to him when asked. He’s obviously got an active “god nodule” providing brain pleasure drugs in his brain.
Yes, Dr. Knuth the human brain, as all brains, are computers of a biological kind. To think otherwise is clearly ignoring the evidence. Knuth makes so many ontological errors that it’s not funny. Now how can I trust his computer science? It’s a good thing that I can test that easily as well as the notions of gods with science.
It was a very sad day when I saw this video. A hero became a nut job par excellence. Very sad indeed. Read the rest of this entry »
Nothing can exceed the speed of “c”, light, not even gravity! Einstein proved this in his Special and General Theories of Relativity. This means that even invisible beings (aka gods) can’t travel faster than the speed of “c”, which proves that they can’t be omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent since these attributes all require information travel faster than light! Sorry, as a result gods simple can’t exist in our universe!
“The Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory is spearheading the completely new field of gravitational wave astronomy and opening a whole new window on the universe. LIGO’s exquisitely sensitive instruments may ultimately take us farther back in time than we’ve ever been, catching, perhaps, the first murmurs of the universe in formation.”
TRUTH, FAITH AND REASON: POPE BENEDICT XVI’S LECTURE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF REGENSBURG
By Gerald E. Marsh
The Stupid Delusionals with Invisible Friends, it burns. Cartoon by Plognark dot com - Thanks...
Pope Benedict XVI interleaved two themes in his lecture at the University of Regensburg on September 12, 2006.1 These will be discussed here in two separate parts: Truth, Faith, and Reason and The Dialogue of Cultures. The first addresses the Pope’s proposal to expand scientific reasoning to include the “rationality of faith”; and the second with the threat of radical Islam, and whether a “dialogue of cultures” is possible if the West persists in its belief in what the Pope calls a “reason which is deaf to the divine”.
PART ONE: TRUTH, FAITH AND REASON The essence of the Enlightenment, as put by Isaiah Berlin in his essay The Counter-Enlightenment, “is the proclamation of the autonomy of reason and the methods of the natural sciences, based on observation as the sole reliable method of knowledge, and the consequent rejection of the authority of revelation, sacred writings and their accepted interpreters, tradition, prescription, and every form of non-rational and transcendent source of knowledge”. Notice that Berlin does not say that this approach is the sole method of obtaining knowledge, only that it is the sole reliable method, meaning that knowledge obtained in this way can be confirmed by experiment. This form of knowledge is increasingly coming into conflict with beliefs based on divine revelation.
Knowledge based on reason and the methods of natural science is threatening to many of those who hold conventional religious beliefs because the implications of such knowledge raise the fear that their lives may lose meaning and direction, and that they will no longer have an ethical basis for behavior. They especially abhor a future bereft of personal immortality. If the origin of life, and humanity in particular, has a natural explanation, how can one believe in the immortal soul, or that humanity is central to God’s creation? Belief in the findings of science about our origins will not only destroy the creation myths of humanity, but will also force the acceptance of the proposition that impersonal and indifferent forces were behind its creation, along with that of all other living creatures.
Michael Ruse vs William Dembski on intelligent design. For more information read: “Debating Design” with essays demonstrating the intellectual hollownes of intelligent design.
“Are you seriously suggesting that we’re some sort of lab experiment of some alien phd student?” ~ Michael Ruse
When you make the argument that Life and even the Universe were created by an Intelligent Designer (aka god or gods or your invisible friend) you are making an assertion that a complex being designed us lesser beings and the Universe. This of course begs the question, “who designed the Intelligent Designer?” Until you can answer that you’re simply using your hand on your private parts for self gratification. No serious discussion can really proceed until that question is addressed.
“It’s … a very serious breach of how true science is done. … Scientists worldwide will begin to realize how prosecuting authorities are beginning to move in on them and particularly those who have profited, or profiteered rather, by peddling false and exaggerated science whether they are scientists themselves, politicians or people in the environmental movement who have been exaggerating the supposed threat of climate change in the way that we now know that the University of East Anglia (UEA/CRU 
Cartoon by 
It’s amazing that humans can invent something, The Lord, and then speak about it as if it’s real. This is one of the wonders of the brain, it’s ability to invent realities that are in reality fantasies that don’t even pretend to connect with the actual reality of Nature were we exist. That’s what is so wonderful about science and the scientific method, it takes the notion of testing our notions against Nature to see insights into the otherwise ineffable qualities of existence. It’s too bad that Knuth chooses to ignore reality when it comes to his spiritual existence. Maybe it’s not that he chooses, maybe it’s that he’s inflicted and has no choice?
