It never fails to amaze me that the people on Social media platforms who clearly left school with one CSE in woodwork seem to know more about climate science , epidemiology and macro economics than folks who have spent their lives studying it .And people believe this shit..
That's a very good reply, but Golfy seems immune to most things though, except he is 100% right.It gets a bit confusing though, when scientists, public health experts and economists give alternative views to the consensus.
Einstein had dyslexia and delayed speech as a child. He couldn't speak comfortably until he was six.
He often clashed with teachers and the regimen of school and taught himself high level maths and philosophy at the age of 12.
Had he not railed against conventional scientific "wisdom", the world would not have weapons that can kill millions in seconds.
Which would put climate science, epidemiology and macro economics arguments to bed for quite a few generations.
I suspect Einstein and Wacky have slightly different ways of arguing against proven scientific data .It gets a bit confusing though, when scientists, public health experts and economists give alternative views to the consensus.
Einstein had dyslexia and delayed speech as a child. He couldn't speak comfortably until he was six.
He often clashed with teachers and the regimen of school and taught himself high level maths and philosophy at the age of 12.
Had he not railed against conventional scientific "wisdom", the world would not have weapons that can kill millions in seconds.
Which would put climate science, epidemiology and macro economics arguments to bed for quite a few generations.
If you're referring to Newton's law, Einstein took a 200 year old theory and posited a different theory, which was only proved correct a further 100 years later (give or take). Many other of his theories have been disproven. This is how science advances, and is brilliant: have a theory -> prove or disprove.Had he not railed against conventional scientific "wisdom", the world would not have weapons that can kill millions in seconds.
If you're referring to Newton's law, Einstein took a 200 year old theory and posited a different theory, which was only proved correct a further 100 years later (give or take). Many other of his theories have been disproven. This is how science advances, and is brilliant: have a theory -> prove or disprove.
If I'm following you correctly then you're suggesting climate change theories may also be disproven? I mean, I guess there is always a chance...but we now know these theories were discussed in the boardrooms of Shell back in the 1960s and have been shown to be wholly accurate. Theory -> proof.
It's feels like the same deflection tactics that have been used for 50+ years when people use as a "well, what if" argument for discussing climate as a way to prolong the denier arguments.
What's in it for them??My post was a response to the suggestion that people who didn't get school qualifications, are a bit thick and more prone to believe that experts are wrong.
I was making the point that even experts disagree about climate change, or can be hypocritical and bleat on about aforementioned change, while contributing to that hypothesised change themselves.
Expertise (some) tells us that we must avoid manmade climate change, but also provides us with weapons of mass destruction, rockets burning obscene amounts of fuel, jet fighters, bombs, cars, lorries, nuclear power plants etc. Experts eh.
Einstein was used as an example, because he was a "rebel" at school and hated the parrot-fashion formal education on offer. He was creative in thought, questioned everything and taught himself what he needed to know.
Personally I don't think we are treating our planet well. Plastics in the oceans aren't a good thing. Chopping down trees on an industrial scale isn't wise. Pumping too much carbon into the atmosphere is daft. But I remain suspicious of the climate change agenda from governments.
qualifications and intelligence are two different things. foxonwater should not have conflated the two.My post was a response to the suggestion that people who didn't get school qualifications, are a bit thick and more prone to believe that experts are wrong.
I was making the point that even experts disagree about climate change, or can be hypocritical and bleat on about aforementioned change, while contributing to that hypothesised change themselves.
Expertise (some) tells us that we must avoid manmade climate change, but also provides us with weapons of mass destruction, rockets burning obscene amounts of fuel, jet fighters, bombs, cars, lorries, nuclear power plants etc. Experts eh.
Einstein was used as an example, because he was a "rebel" at school and hated the parrot-fashion formal education on offer. He was creative in thought, questioned everything and taught himself what he needed to know.
Personally I don't think we are treating our planet well. Plastics in the oceans aren't a good thing. Chopping down trees on an industrial scale isn't wise. Pumping too much carbon into the atmosphere is daft. But I remain suspicious of the climate change agenda from governments.
I'm glad you're following the money and you're not being manipulated.qualifications and intelligence are two different things. foxonwater should not have conflated the two.
However, thick people are more prone to disinformation, there's plenty of psychological research on that. They're easier to manipulate as are angry people. this is why the political right constantly plays culture wars to keep low information/high anger voters riled up as they are more likely to vote for them.
Einstein clearly wasn't thick, and many of his theories have been borne out through rigorous scientific testing.
for those of us that don't believe there's a giant conspiracy behind everything, i would just say show us the money, if your theory is worth any salt, test it, and have it peer reviewed. That's all you have to do to convince large swathes of people with critical thinking skills that you are on the right track.
glad you've seen the light regi.I'm glad you're following the money and you're not being manipulated.
As you say, anyone with just a little 'skill' in critical thinking can see that it's JUST 'the political right' that play culture wars. Just 'the right' that have angry followers riled up and fully manipulated to vote for them.
Good point. Human made climate change'Man made climate change'
Ffs
Well that's definitely a better reply than the other ludicrous one of yours...glad you've seen the light regi.
The right use culture wars as a deflection against their hijacking and ransacking of the economy at the expense of the working man/woman.
The left stupidly play the culture wars in the hope that more people will vote for them, they don't do it to make angry voters vote for them, it actually has the opposite effect and plays right into the hands of the right wing culture warriors. it's one of the reasons labour hasn't been in power for 13 years because they don't say "it's the economy stupid", they try to pander to every minority's wishes.
both play the culture wars but for very different reasons, and with very different outcomes, as anybody with any 'skill' in critical thinking would know.
I'll take that as a badge of honor coming from you.Well that's definitely a better reply than the other ludicrous one of yours...
Better, but still a load of old bollocks.