Phi for All

I think GutZ is moving in the right direction with his idea in post #43. My only concern is that people get too easily marginalized with convenient labels here. I just think we need to be more careful how we apply them so we post intellectually honest discussions, even if they aren't always with intellectually honest people. Let's not resort to torture just because the enemy does it. For the most part, we do a pretty good job of laying out decent refutations of misunderstood science. We point out errors, we cite reputable sources and we don't stoop to the kinds of bad logic the opposition uses. But too often we throw out subtle well-poisonings ("anyone with a second-grade education would know X..."), or we reject evidence in a way we'd never be allowed to reject the person posting it ("That's a stupid article" rather than, "That article doesn't draw a proper conclusion because..."). Calling a spade a spade sounds like good old folk wisdom, but it's sort of an Appeal to Homily. It too often assumes that the person doing the calling is qualified to judge spades in every instance, and it poisons the well on any future evidence or discussions with that person. We can always get rid of someone who is persistent in their misinformation or in complete denial of facts garnered by using peer-reviewed scientific methodology, but while they are here, I would like to see them given a more than fair chance, even when they're being deceitful. Call it the scientific high ground. This is a lot like criminal justice. I'm not arguing that incorrigible criminals be set free, I just want each crime tried separately and fairly before we label them incorrigible and throw them in jail for life.

Remember when Desmond got Lyle to forge Jennifer's signature on the expense reports for the Nike account ("But she didn't authorize those hookers for the Nike execs, YOU did!" said Lyle; "Just do it!" said Lyle, with a swoosh), and Bradford fired Jennifer for embezzling? That's when Desmond got promoted.

We have no rep rules, other than the ones forced by the system (spreading it around before giving to the same person again). Since it's a positive-only system, I think giving rep never hurts. I give it to posts that teach me something new, make a great point, show great style or make me laugh.

Remind her that observation is the heart of science.

Wade and Nancy had their baby, but that hasn't stopped Wade from hitting on Nancy's sister Charlene, who lost her job at the ad agency after her boss Desmond found out she was sleeping with Desmond's assistant Helga, who, it turns out, is really Wade's evil twin brother who went to Brazil and had a sex change.

Because geologists write in goofy fonts and formats.

It's spelled "peeled", unless your news is really loud. I will keep my eye peeled. It's spelled "obscene", not "obscure". And I nominate you for this. Sure we do. We think you're great. Are you the one who lives in Finland, and tells the great jokes?

When someone has been shown bogus photos, or only given one explanation for a piece of evidence, they can be mislead into spreading that disinformation. If those people can be shown the errors in reasoning, or the evidence can be shown to be bogus, those folks might, just maybe, be more amenable to a reasoned explanation if they aren't labeled kooks or crackpots right off. For this particular guy to make the effort to seek out Buzz Aldrin with his crap conspiracy, I think he falls on the side of the fence with an agenda, and no, I don't think those people can be reasoned with. They have a reason for spreading their conspiracies that overrides the truth. You mentioned jryan before. I'm not sure which category he falls in, someone with an agenda or someone who was misinformed and is simply passing on a bad argument, but the second post in his "Is 'Consensus' shifting?" thread used terms like "stupid" and "non sequitur" and I think that made him unnecessarily antagonistic and determined in his future posts. It could well be that he has some kind of agenda that made him turn to fallacies in order to "win" his argument, but it may have just been that he was being stubborn due to being labeled, pigeonholed and marginalized. Buzz just asked the guy to get away from him while the guy was claiming he didn't walk on the moon. Buzz didn't hit him for his misinformation or his stance. Buzz hit him because the guy got in his face and called him a coward and a liar. If that was 100 years earlier, Buzz could have shot him dead. It's one thing to question evidence. It's a whole other thing to call an Apollo astronaut a coward to his face.

Doctors are basically specialized scientists, so science is a prestigious profession. Lawyers are not prestigious, they are prestidigious, showing a clever deceitfulness by artful mumbo jumbo and misdirection.

We don't ban people for bad spelling, but we want others to be able to understand what you are saying. Please avoid text speak. This is a great time to practice your English spelling.

I would imagine they respond best to people who haven't pigeonholed them with a dismissive label, which can seem like a judgment with no recourse.

All I know is that calling them names (which is the way they see it) just entrenches them, makes you seem like the bad guy and destroys any chance of meaningful discussion. Again, I think there are two different types, the ones who have an agenda for promoting creationism, and those who are merely parroting something that happened to make sense to them at the time. You can't deal with the former, but the latter may come around if they aren't dismissed as "X" or their argument labeled "stupid" or "crap". Human?

Both iNow and now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said you *advocated* it, I asked if you thought the labels were helpful. I mentioned that, for people who might just be parroting misinformation they heard elsewhere and thought valid, not labeling them too early might help keep them from being too defensive to learn. A conclusion based on more than just a few statements, no matter how erroneous. Again, if the person is not spreading misinformation or misrepresenting science due to a hidden agenda (an oil lobbyist who stands to lose money if people use less gasoline, for instance), they probably will remain more open to evidence if they aren't demeaned with a quick-draw label. I can see your point. Agreed. I would say the "base" are definitely those with some kind of agenda that is hurt by a stance which recognizes AGW. These are not the kinds of people I want to give leeway to.

Right now a hole is drilled, say 15" wide and 5000 feet deep, and when oil is found, they put a 14" pipe down the hole. Your bucket system seems to need at least 5 times that space, and the biggest drills are only 36" wide. How are you digging down 5000 feet at 6-8 feet in diameter, what equipment would you use? And what material are you shoring up the sides with so the hole doesn't collapse?

The smaller you make them, the less oil is brought to the surface. The faster you drive the chain, the more energy you use to bring up smallere amounts. The smaller the bucket, the easier it is to damage. The faster you make the chain go, the more easy it will be to break it. If the buckets are metal to make them strong, you risk striking rocks that may cause a spark. How would you dig the hole wide enough for your system? What would you use to shore up the sides so they don't cave in? Please understand, we're not making fun of you, or trying to discourage you, we're pointing out flaws that would keep your idea from working. You have to remember, in order to switch to your system, it has to be more attractive to investors in some way, either cheaper to use, easier to use, less environmental impact, etc. It has to be better than the way it's done now.

Oil wells are usually drilled down using heavy boring bits to get through the rock to the oil. These can be 5" to 36" in diameter, and then a smaller pipe is run through the hole. Your bucket system would require an enormous hole to be dug to make room for your bucket system. You would use more energy, you couldn't go as deep without the sides caving in, and you would leave a tremendously dangerous and unsightly gouge in the earth after the oil was gone.

Do you think these labels help in any way? Are they applied only to those you feel are actively promoting an anti-science agenda even though they know better, or does it include people who may just be parroting a response they heard elsewhere that makes sense to them? I think there are more of the latter. I think these people could actually be corrected if they weren't labeled a crackpot at the outset of a discussion. If they continue to ignore evidence then they may deserve the label but I think marginalizing a stance makes them unnecessarily intransigent.

Canada's public health system doesn't have a pamphlet on tweezers and H2O2?

You replied to this thread so you did that well. It would be great if you would type whole words, since text speak is not the easiest for our global membership to read. Just pick a sub-forum for the topic you want to discuss and there is a New Thread button at the top left that will start... well, a New Thread. Tell us what your doubts are about, perhaps in a New Thread, and we'll address them there. Welcome and have a good time.

Unfortunately, this happens all too often, and not just with AGW topics. Part of the damage it does is to immediately put people on the defensive, and suddenly a person who might have been more willing to listen to an opposing stance is adamant and unswerving in their defense for having been unfairly marginalized.

I'm not too far from a NOAA lab facility for climatology, and I know NOAA has a marine biology facility doing oceanographic research in La Jolla, not too far from you. Have you looked into any biology or marine biology jobs or internships?