Fellowship you are off your mark on this one. I posted a legitimate critique on this article and was then lambasted by Moogs and segovius. If there is a "condescending tone" in this thread it was started by them. You're a new mod' so I'll give you a pass this time.
Fellowship you are off your mark on this one. I posted a legitimate critique on this article and was then lambasted by Moogs and segovius. If there is a "condescending tone" in this thread it was started by them. You're a new mod' so I'll give you a pass this time.
Nobody is on your case for your critique here Scott. I saw the replies by segovious and Moogs and what they have done is reply to the bait you gave them by way of your "tone" that I explained to you a post up.
Where I come down on this is simply the following:
Do not employ condescending tone in the first place so that the entire forum may read threads without the "personal attacks loop" turned to the "on" position.
Moogs and segovius please don't reply with personal remarks.
While I think your questioning the legitmacy of the background of this article was a valid method of undercutting its argument (although the distinction between a BS and PhD is trivial surely, and does play into the perception of your tone as condescending), Fellowship is not wrong about the general tone of your post. You could have stated simply that "I looked up the research behind the article to see what it was all about." That would not have been condescending. Saying, so, um, did you read the code for the model system program and compare it to other models available, is condescending. See?
I should know. I walk around with a halo of condescension.
[anecdote]Twenty something year ago (ie before I was born) my parents regularly went skiing in Scotland in late May, and there was loads of snow left. Hasn't happened recently.[/anecdote]
Rather than debate the science let's debate the debate and only focus on the dissenters. That's the best way to vet a body of scientific work.
What are you debating? Are you debating whether there is a substantial degree of scientific agreement that greenhouse gases are causing rapid global warming? Are you debating whether it is a good idea to reduce emissions even in the absence of absolute and conclusive proof - proof that probably will never occur? Are you debating whether there are alternative technolgical and economic solutions to societies driven by highly polluting, non-renwable resources?
Good news everyone: I have discovered a new litmus test for determining whether or not a theory has any validity to it (scientific or otherwise). It goes something like this:
If Scott stubbornly contests it is crap, the theory most likely will hold valid. If Scott contests it is valid, it is most likely crap.
For example, in Scott's World ? , if the meteorologists are unable to accurately predict the weather 72 hours from now, then geologists, chemists and oceanographers who study ocean currents and their atmospheric effects, must not have any ability to accurately forecast general weather trends either. Quite obviously this is crap, and therefore, the original idea posited here, valid to some degree.
The only scenario where this litmus test may prove inadequate, is when the subject-matter at hand has no ramifications direct or indirect for the Republican party or its kindred governments, OR, if Sammi Jo finds a theory (usually a conspiracy theory) to be valid, while Scott contests it is crap. A conondrum to be sure....
In these cases one must find other litmus tests.
Side Note: no one has passed off the study as fact, but merely asked whethere they think it has merit. But surely this is folly since none of us have read a word about global pollution or abnormal warming / cooling trends over the last 20 years. We're all clueless apparently.
What are you debating? Are you debating whether there is a substantial degree of scientific agreement that greenhouse gases are causing rapid global warming? Are you debating whether it is a good idea to reduce emissions even in the absence of absolute and conclusive proof - proof that probably will never occur? Are you debating whether there are alternative technolgical and economic solutions to societies driven by highly polluting, non-renwable resources?
I'm questioning the expertise of the people in the article and I'm unable to review the work for myself. Which is exactly what I made clear before Moogs and segovius went on their personal attack of me rather than address the legitimate points I brought up.
I'm questioning the expertise of the people in the article and I'm unable to review the work for myself.
On what basis? If you don't feel the institute in question is a reliable source of environmental experts (in various fields), then explain to us kindly who is. Then we can go to their web site and see the light?
On what basis? If you don't feel the institute in question is a reliable source of environmental experts (in various fields), then explain to us kindly who is. Then we can go to their web site and see the light?
Just curious, naturally.
On the basis that one person is represented as having a PhD when in fact she does not and that the Nobel Prize winner is not an authority on the topic of the article. Which is exactly what I made clear before.
On the basis that one person is represented as having a PhD when in fact she does not and that the Nobel Prize winner is not an authority on the topic of the article. Which is exactly what I made clear before.
The PhD thing is not a big deal. People regardless of training can do innovative research. The hierarchy is merely structure and adds nothing to the person in question. Nobel Prize winner is a farce in any direction even if they were an expert in the field what relevence does a nobel prize winner have over an expert that didnt win the prize. If we are talking the politics of the article, it seems that it is baited. But the research has been done, no?
When a reporter uses the term "Dr" when quoting someone it's intended to convey some level of expertise. But that was not the case in the this article. And a BS is not a PhD. It doesn't mean that a person with a BS can't do high quality work that would stand up the peer review processes but people with PhDs have been through a much higher level of education that is unique from the BS degree.
Do not employ condescending tone in the first place so that the entire forum may read threads without the "personal attacks loop" turned to the "on" position.
much higher level of education that is unique from the BS degree.
I beg to differ. By far I think I recieved a better education as a BA in science than I am recieving as a graduate student in science. And I did not take a step down to grad school (nor one up really). Graduate school is the equivalent of a holding pattern, a really crappy holding pattern. Think of it this way Scott, I was introduced to more broader and possibly deeper laboratory experiences in college than I will have been in graduate school simply by the nature of the beast. At least as an undergrad I was able to persue interests that ranged far outside the standard (bio)chemistry regimen and i wasnt inclined to stay in one lab for an extended period of time and so I saw more/understood more that way...
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
So um how many people tried to do a little research on this report?
I did.
Then this:
You all don't know how to read news do you?
And I'm the bad guy for questioning faulty reporting?
The condescending tone is the "bad guy"
Let me remind you how the thread opened:
"What are your thoughts on this? Could we see this unfold in our lives? Do you have doubts? Do you feel this is very possible?"
Weigh in with your thoughts
Scott this welcomes opinion from all and it is not welcome for condescending tone to be implemented in the replies of any.
Thank you,
Fellows
Originally posted by Scott
Fellowship you are off your mark on this one. I posted a legitimate critique on this article and was then lambasted by Moogs and segovius. If there is a "condescending tone" in this thread it was started by them. You're a new mod' so I'll give you a pass this time.
Nobody is on your case for your critique here Scott. I saw the replies by segovious and Moogs and what they have done is reply to the bait you gave them by way of your "tone" that I explained to you a post up.
Where I come down on this is simply the following:
Do not employ condescending tone in the first place so that the entire forum may read threads without the "personal attacks loop" turned to the "on" position.
Moogs and segovius please don't reply with personal remarks.
Stick to the subjects at hand.
Fellows
While I think your questioning the legitmacy of the background of this article was a valid method of undercutting its argument (although the distinction between a BS and PhD is trivial surely, and does play into the perception of your tone as condescending), Fellowship is not wrong about the general tone of your post. You could have stated simply that "I looked up the research behind the article to see what it was all about." That would not have been condescending. Saying, so, um, did you read the code for the model system program and compare it to other models available, is condescending. See?
I should know. I walk around with a halo of condescension.
Originally posted by Scott
If there is a "condescending tone" in this thread it was started by them. You're a new mod' so I'll give you a pass this time.
Oh the irony....
EDIT: sorry... missed your last post Fellows.
Segovius: I accept your addendum with open arms and will revise the working draft immediately.
Originally posted by Scott
Rather than debate the science let's debate the debate and only focus on the dissenters. That's the best way to vet a body of scientific work.
What are you debating? Are you debating whether there is a substantial degree of scientific agreement that greenhouse gases are causing rapid global warming? Are you debating whether it is a good idea to reduce emissions even in the absence of absolute and conclusive proof - proof that probably will never occur? Are you debating whether there are alternative technolgical and economic solutions to societies driven by highly polluting, non-renwable resources?
Originally posted by Moogs
Good news everyone: I have discovered a new litmus test for determining whether or not a theory has any validity to it (scientific or otherwise). It goes something like this:
If Scott stubbornly contests it is crap, the theory most likely will hold valid. If Scott contests it is valid, it is most likely crap.
For example, in Scott's World ? , if the meteorologists are unable to accurately predict the weather 72 hours from now, then geologists, chemists and oceanographers who study ocean currents and their atmospheric effects, must not have any ability to accurately forecast general weather trends either. Quite obviously this is crap, and therefore, the original idea posited here, valid to some degree.
The only scenario where this litmus test may prove inadequate, is when the subject-matter at hand has no ramifications direct or indirect for the Republican party or its kindred governments, OR, if Sammi Jo finds a theory (usually a conspiracy theory) to be valid, while Scott contests it is crap. A conondrum to be sure....
In these cases one must find other litmus tests.
Side Note: no one has passed off the study as fact, but merely asked whethere they think it has merit. But surely this is folly since none of us have read a word about global pollution or abnormal warming / cooling trends over the last 20 years. We're all clueless apparently.
You motha fuqua.
How's that for a personal attack?
Stop the baiting and this is directed to anyone who needs to hear it.
Stick to the issues or it is Locked.
Fellows
Originally posted by Chinney
What are you debating? Are you debating whether there is a substantial degree of scientific agreement that greenhouse gases are causing rapid global warming? Are you debating whether it is a good idea to reduce emissions even in the absence of absolute and conclusive proof - proof that probably will never occur? Are you debating whether there are alternative technolgical and economic solutions to societies driven by highly polluting, non-renwable resources?
I'm questioning the expertise of the people in the article and I'm unable to review the work for myself. Which is exactly what I made clear before Moogs and segovius went on their personal attack of me rather than address the legitimate points I brought up.
Originally posted by segovius
Well, focussing on the dissenters is related to the science.
...
NO! You should focus on the argument of the dissenters.
Originally posted by Scott
I'm questioning the expertise of the people in the article and I'm unable to review the work for myself.
On what basis? If you don't feel the institute in question is a reliable source of environmental experts (in various fields), then explain to us kindly who is. Then we can go to their web site and see the light?
Just curious, naturally.
If you click the link scroll down just a little to get into the report.
Fellows
Originally posted by Moogs
On what basis? If you don't feel the institute in question is a reliable source of environmental experts (in various fields), then explain to us kindly who is. Then we can go to their web site and see the light?
Just curious, naturally.
On the basis that one person is represented as having a PhD when in fact she does not and that the Nobel Prize winner is not an authority on the topic of the article. Which is exactly what I made clear before.
Originally posted by Scott
On the basis that one person is represented as having a PhD when in fact she does not and that the Nobel Prize winner is not an authority on the topic of the article. Which is exactly what I made clear before.
The PhD thing is not a big deal. People regardless of training can do innovative research. The hierarchy is merely structure and adds nothing to the person in question. Nobel Prize winner is a farce in any direction even if they were an expert in the field what relevence does a nobel prize winner have over an expert that didnt win the prize. If we are talking the politics of the article, it seems that it is baited. But the research has been done, no?
Do not employ condescending tone in the first place so that the entire forum may read threads without the "personal attacks loop" turned to the "on" position.
Moderator you have a new fan
Originally posted by Scott
much higher level of education that is unique from the BS degree.
I beg to differ. By far I think I recieved a better education as a BA in science than I am recieving as a graduate student in science. And I did not take a step down to grad school (nor one up really). Graduate school is the equivalent of a holding pattern, a really crappy holding pattern. Think of it this way Scott, I was introduced to more broader and possibly deeper laboratory experiences in college than I will have been in graduate school simply by the nature of the beast. At least as an undergrad I was able to persue interests that ranged far outside the standard (bio)chemistry regimen and i wasnt inclined to stay in one lab for an extended period of time and so I saw more/understood more that way...