If you do the effort to understand my messages you will see that I am not unaware of your questions and that my answers are relevant, at least in terms of elementary logic. No more complex tools are needed here.I apologize, Alexandr, but what you are saying makes no sense.
As you yourself explained in your own words, sciences were born from philosophy. Which means, in the ideal world (from idears), that sciences are born by “separation” of “meaning”. Which have since become fixed in common semantics. This is not an empty nominalism. In other words words have a conceptually defined meaning. Changing this state of affairs does not depend on anyone's will. An individual who uses common language with words that only make sense to him is called a moron
(in science).Science refers to the study of phenomena. Philosophy is the quest for meaning (schematically). The two entities differ in their concepts. This differentiation does not depend on your will.
Once out of the mother's womb, the child has little chance of re-entering it. It is technically possible within certain limits, but this return to the source will not recreate the conditions prior to childbirth. The umbilical cord between philosophy and science has long been cut by reason.
Philosophy can rely on science to access meaning (and always has). Philosophy can understand science as an object. But when science mixes with meaning, we get, for example, creationism. This is what our friend SamH produces for us: an unproductive and hollow creationism in the sense that it does not allow for a theory, but claims to create sufficient doubt with the same method. It's a decoy. A conceptual imposture.
I refer you here to this quote from Nicolas Boileau.
“What we understand well is expressed clearly, and the words to say it come easily. » Are in a thick cloud always embarrassed; The day of reason cannot penetrate it.
SamH, I tell you this with the greatest kindness, but you always say stupid things.Historically, sciences were born from human reflection, which we call philosophy (to put it simply). Sciences are now autonomous.
To use Alexandr's metaphor, you are trying to explain to us that the child can return inside the mother, in whole or in part.
Do you understand why this statement is unacceptable from the point of view of reason?
[
I don't say this to troll this thread, but to help you think. I also think of those who try to read us and are perhaps shocked by certain enormities. You cannot reinvent the definitions of science and philosophy.]
To make sure I understand correctly, is that what I didn't do? So what do you have to answer?Choose one definition over another. Yes. But when they exist. No individual has the power to reassign a new meaning to common concepts (or at his peril
).Contemporary science and philosophy are distinguished in that all science has an object and a method and its purpose is to explain phenomena.
The method of philosophy is the reason and its objective is to apprehend the meaning. The two can never be confused! If there is a philosophy of science, there can be no science of philosophy.
Science sets goals, but it doesn’t make sense. Giving it meaning, means corrupting it. Science then becomes the alibi of ideology. And in no way a "philosophical science". It's silly.
To know how the semantics of terms have been redefined over time, we must question the history of concepts and ideas.
It is not for SamH to decide what science or philosophy is, nor even to confuse them. This will only make sense to him. That was the point of my joke.
I don't have time to point out all the enormous nonsense that you say with remarkable aplomb. Here's just the last one.And it’s me who’s in bad faith? Ridiculous.
I'll let you have fun. I have more serious things to do.
You ask me "who" it depends on? From which person or group of people? What do you want me to answer?
If you ask me "what" it depends on, it's different. But it is not what you asking for ?
I know my level of English is not very good. Did I misunderstand?
What I obviously did was to sort out your assertions and demonstrate how they were incapable of calling into question the current scientific consensus on the climate issue. Then I noted some of your more serious confusions. No. Science is not a philosophy. And I am fully equipped to confirm this to you.
I understand that this upsets you. But the facts and your words demonstrate by themselves that it is you who are in the amalgamation (between ideology, science and philosophy, for example).
It's not very difficult to understand. One day, in a specific cultural environment (a country, a scientific discipline, a political thought, a philosophy, etc.) we name a thing by a word or we define it by a concept. Then, everyone uses the word or concept in accordance with its meaning and/or definition. It's trivial, but that's how it is. I don't see what can resist understanding? I had missed this gem. There, for example, we can't even distinguish what you don't understand? The words of others? Or the one you use. You end up saying things that only make sense to you. Because they escape common sense. I seem to have already told you (kindly) that your speech was confused. Each of your interventions confirms this a little more. Besides, you admit it yourself.
Words and other concepts are the basis of language and thinking. Their meanings must be common. Otherwise, we fall into confusion. This is one of the meanings of the myth of the Tower of Babel, for example. In fact, it is quite possible that these differentiations do not depend on you. I don't necessarily agree with everything I pasted (to be honest, I didn't even take the time to read it, I just copied/pasted and had Google translate the first page of the Encyclopedia Universalis on the subject).But I tend to agree with you. Even if Heidegger is not my favorite philosopher for essentially historical reasons that you know.
Edit: (but we're straying a little from your topic, I think)
Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, .
For classic racing use (balanced grids, no motorcycles, bicycles, buses... backhoe loaders etc.) and for more fun and recreational use than competitive, the D44 patch radically alter the gaming experience. This can be improved, but already very satisfying
I particularly appreciate the new combativeness of the AI. It is no longer possible (apparently?!) to "scare" the bots by pressing them against the edge of the track so that they slow down and move behind. It's good.
The bots are also much better distributed on the track with more varied trajectories and fight more among themselves. The races are more lively. There are still a few car crashes, lawn mowings, and stranges road trip, but it's already much better than the D43 patch. The defects I noticed have disappeared.
Thank you and well done Scawen for this major improvement. This new AI radically alter the perception of single-player gaming (for someone who unfortunately doesn't spend a lot of time playing, but who has known the game forever). You are tough on us. Ouch ! But it reassuring that you haven't learned anything here.Those who are less informed than you will find here direct access to scientific information and explanation of the scientific proof of the anthropogenic cause of global warming. It's already good.Afterwards we only touched the question of catastrophism and not even addressed that of solutions.
In our defense, when those who claim to explain science to you do not know what it is, do not know its history and do not understand how it works, a little mine-clearing is necessary.
When others imagine that philosophical rationalism dictates favoring a proposition such as “global warming is cool” over the detailed reports of the IPCC, on the grounds that the former requires fewer entities, and that these two propositions must be analyzed on the same hierarchical basis... The road is long and difficult. Because we must restart from fundamentals which should have been acquired at school.
By consulting sources on the internet, we learn nothing. We inform ourselves and/or we misinform ourselves. The individual ability to construct reasoning is essential. Whatever the problem addressed and the state of our knowledge about it.
This new platitude being said, I will always stand with SamH when he is right.
And SamH is right to ask you for a link. Without a link no one can understand what you are talking about? Trees absorb CO2 and also release it. Especially when they are cut or burned.
English is not one of the 3 official languages of my country. This is a mistranslation of the Encyclopædia Universalis by Google, as noted. But you will easily find the same references with a better translation. Translation does not remake history. Despite your so-called titles, you support nonsense. This is where the impasse lies. The fact that this is in your area of expertise constitutes an aggravating circumstance.Looking forward Samh. Real work awaits me.
And without hard feelings
Universalis Encyclopedia:
Science and philosophy were for a long time inseparable. In Antiquity, philosophy represented the supreme science, that of “the first principles and the first causes”. Other sciences, and notably physics, received their foundations from her. This alliance was broken in the 17th century, with the appearance of the experimental method and the development of the positive sciences. Since that time, science and philosophy have continued to move away from each other.
This separation has not only dissociated what was once united, but has completely disrupted the very meaning of the scientific project. Abandoning the ideal of pure or disinterested knowledge, science has embarked on a vast enterprise of transformation, that is to say, domination of the world. It is getting closer and closer to technology, to the point that it is sometimes referred to today as techno-science. Modern science seems on the verge of realizing the Cartesian dream of making man “master and possessor of nature”. As such, it becomes the depository of all the hopes of humanity, which expects from it what philosophy has failed to offer it, that is to say its happiness or rather its material well-being. .
Having gradually invested all sectors of reality, this science, conquering and sure of itself, places philosophy in an uncomfortable situation. What domain does it have left, in fact, if everything knowable, matter as well as spirit, is distributed among the various scientific disciplines? Philosophy literally becomes irrelevant, and its existence dangerously compromised. Closer to opinion than to knowledge, it seems to be only a survival of the past, a residue doomed to disappear, absorbed by scientific progress. This is at least the opinion of positivists and scientists, who see in philosophy this “part of human knowledge which has not yet succeeded in taking on the characteristics and taking on the value of science”. Metaphysics thus constitutes, in Comte's eyes, a sort of "chronic illness naturally inherent to our mental and individual or collective evolution, between childhood and virility", meaning between the childhood of the theological spirit and the virility of positive mind.
On closer inspection, however, things are not that simple. It is not certain, after all, that, even in the age of triumphant technology, philosophy is in as bad a position as we have just said. It is undoubtedly an exaggeration, in fact, to consider that scientific advances, however remarkable they may be, ipso facto invalidate all philosophical thought. Far from marking its disappearance, the rise in power of the positive sciences, and particularly that of the natural sciences, could even give it new impetus by freeing it for its essential tasks. ““Philosophy”, writes Heidegger, is in the constant necessity of justifying its existence before the “sciences”. She thinks she can achieve this more surely by raising herself to the level of a science. But this effort is the abandonment of the essence of thought. Philosophy is pursued by the fear of losing consideration and validity if it is not science. We see this as a lack which is assimilated to non-scientificity” (Letter on Humanism). Philosophy has nothing to gain, in fact, from trying to compete with science. She can only deny herself by wanting to model herself after her. His approach is not comparable to his, because his ambition is different. She does not have to explore[...]
We are not at an impasse because you are cornered by your contradictions. Your thinking can still evolve. Don't be defeatist. There are other ways to communicate than attack and defence.
I wasn't attacking you. I was pointing out cognitive aberrations and fundamental errors in your reasoning (sorry, I don't know how to say it any other way ).
This, for example, is ideological.
When I read your first message, I seemed to read a reference to the Little Ice Age as well as an incongruous reference to termites being as harmful to nature as human activities. I must have been dreaming. (I was busy and read it skimming). But you already referred to the Little Ice Age here, for the same reasons.
https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2061578#post2061578
The values of scientific integrity have no connection with our debate. When I say that your argument is weak, I demonstrate it.
Your scientific frame of reference and your conceptual angle of attack are unsuitable for understanding or explaining the problem of global warming. I tell you why.
I am not denigrating you in any way.
And I’m not denigrating science any further! I demonstrate how the elements you provide are inappropriate for the analysis you think you are doing, and that they do not serve your demonstration. These arguments do not allow us to doubt the scientific conclusions on the anthropogenic cause of global warming which is proven: Proven by calculation.
This demonstrates that I understand quite precisely how science works and what its demonstrations are based on.
Science is not a philosophy since Antiquity. I don't think venturing into this debate is to your advantage.
I wasn't attacking you. I was pointing out cognitive aberrations and fundamental errors in your reasoning (sorry, I don't know how to say it any other way
).This, for example, is ideological.
When I read your first message, I seemed to read a reference to the Little Ice Age as well as an incongruous reference to termites being as harmful to nature as human activities. I must have been dreaming. (I was busy and read it skimming). But you already referred to the Little Ice Age here, for the same reasons.
https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2061578#post2061578
The values of scientific integrity have no connection with our debate. When I say that your argument is weak, I demonstrate it.
Your scientific frame of reference and your conceptual angle of attack are unsuitable for understanding or explaining the problem of global warming. I tell you why.
I am not denigrating you in any way.
And I’m not denigrating science any further! I demonstrate how the elements you provide are inappropriate for the analysis you think you are doing, and that they do not serve your demonstration. These arguments do not allow us to doubt the scientific conclusions on the anthropogenic cause of global warming which is proven: Proven by calculation.
This demonstrates that I understand quite precisely how science works and what its demonstrations are based on.
Science is not a philosophy since Antiquity. I don't think venturing into this debate is to your advantage.
Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, .
Thank you for this clarification. I can tell you what bothers me in your speech. (I will tell you this without animosity. I specify this because my bad English does not allow me any subtlety. This caricatures my words and sometimes makes them more aggressive than they are, even incomprehensible . This not the idea here).Your speech is coated in ideology and confusing. The arguments you present are very weak in scope, even scientifically insignificant.
However, these arguments are enough (for you) to discredit the scientific analysis of global warming, its causes and its effects. Whereas, to put it bluntly, your positioning has absolutely no scientific basis, at any level (referential or conceptual) purposes.
Whether global warming began (or not) before the industrial era is irrelevant (current warming began 15,000 years ago). Natural cycles exist and are known (I refer you here to Fournier's analyses). Demonstrating that the premises of global warming predate industrialization presents absolutely no challenge in invalidating the anthropogenic cause of warming.
In fact, the anthropogenic cause is not linked to the origin of warming but to its temporality. Pascal Richet's thesis, on which you seem to rely, also has flaws. Above all, its relevance is limited on the effects of human emissions on current warming.
The evolution of the climate is known to us through a quantity of reliable material elements which provide us with localized information on climatic epiphenomena, of which the Little Ice Age (which disappeared in the last version of your message) is only one example. These localized phenomena tell us nothing about the effects of current warming, its evolution or its effects.
Paleoclimate modelling improves our understanding of the mechanisms of climate change, which remains incomplete. But, again, this is irrelevant to this debate. Since the proof of the impact of human activities on global warming is mathematically demonstrated by modelling whose relevance is unrelated to the evolution of climatic cycles throughout history. The mathematical proof provided by the modeling is trivial. If we remove emissions of anthropogenic origin, there is no other warming than natural warming, which has in fact (you are right) never been problematic.
In short, I perfectly understand your ideological resistance regarding the impact of human activities on current warming, and I can understand it.
But what I see in your discourse is that science serves as your alibi without giving you in any way the means of demonstration. Your position therefore remains purely and simply ideological, and in no way scientific.
(said with respect, of course )
Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, .
Ok, I didn't take the time to comment on your link. I replied to you before seeing that you had added it. I read the article, there's no problem talking about it. I didn't offer you a truce. I saw that your message was more reasoned than the previous ones. I said to myself that perhaps it was the right time to change paradigm, and that we both adopt a more constructive attitude, at least for the understanding of others (if there are still any? 
).The fact that we disagree in no way proves that I don't understand science. Besides, in my remarks I don't need it. The thesis of the anthropogenic origin of global warming suits me. Not because it is certainly true or apocalyptic or because it makes me happy. But just because it is the most plausible explanation for this phenomenon. Unless you prove to me otherwise by the facts and not only by the decline of the state of science. I asked you for. You didn't do it.
On the use of Occam's razor you are neither right nor wrong. As a scientist you know that any method, any reasoning, is as effective for error than for truth.
Edit: I don't dispute that nature is natural. I know man can destroy it. He works there a little every day.
I have as many doubts as you about the effectiveness of the recommended policies, for the simple reason that they are inapplicable. But that's another subject.
Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, .
In this precise case, it is a good way of unmasking gross impostures. I would like to point out to you that you are in no way demonstrating the truth of your words. You in no way demonstrate how science is wrong about the problem of global warming.
Whether people believe you or they believe the science, they remain in the ignorance.
Your position is entirely based on a reversal of the burden of proof: “you believe that science is right? Prove it to me!”
This is a fallacy, you know that
Occam's razor can be used in different ways depending on the complexity of the problem. In terms of the most common use, Occam's razor allows a person who understands nothing about the issues of global warming, its causes and consequences, and who does not believe in science, to make a rational choice. To decide by reason between two propositions on the same problem. Without choosing the simplest, but the most probably true (or likely, at least).
It is in this context that I spoke about this concept, because many people are helpless and troubled by conspiracy theories about the decay of science and the lie according to which current tools do not make it possible to make accurate predictions about the long-term warming.
In no case does Occam's razor postulate that the proposition which includes the fewest entities is the best and that the one which requires the most demonstrations and elements is less credible.
Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, .
Reason : precision on veracity
Well, I agree to play your game. I will cut your greenhouse phantasm to pieces with Occam's razor. But first I want to point out that Occam's razor has already allowed me to resolve this question. This is why I consider to have answered it.In the name of the principle of simplicity, Occam's Razor removed your greenhouse proposal, just as it removed SamH's thesis. I thought this was understood since my post to SamH, in which I first referenced Occam's Razor. You may not have read it. https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2061154#post2061154
Occam's Razor is a tool. Like all tools, it acts where it is used. And here it is your classification that is wrong.
Let me explain :
At the first level, there is the observable reality of global warming, which no one here disputes.
At the second level are theories about its causes.
The dominant theory is the thesis of the anthropogenic cause of warming.
The alternative theses, and supernumerary for Occam's razor, are the general failure of science and the conspiracy of scientist. These alternative theses are eliminated by Occam's razor in application of the principles of simplicity and rationality.
SamH is right. Occam’s Razor doesn’t “find the proof.” Occam’s Razor doesn’t seek “the truth” either. It is a powerful tool that cuts to the chase in the name of rationalism. Its goal is to achieve the simplicity of the obvious more quickly. The obvious about the causes of warming is that what science demonstrates with consensus is more trustworthy than theories that rely solely on the denigration of science. QED. This is not a rhetorical device, but a strict application of Occam's razor method.
At the third level of the problem of global warming, are, on the one hand, scientific projections on its consequences and on the other hand individual speculations. This is where your greenhouse proposal is.
This proposition is opposed, in its very formality, to the conclusions of science. This is enough to evacuate it using Occam's razor. Whatever I say about your proposal in detail, it is this first option which counts in application of the fundamental's principles of Occam's razor.
To not waste my time unnecessarily (I have a life outside this forum
), confirm to me that you understand this demonstration and that it is consistent with what you know about Occam's razor.I need also like you to explain to me what these statements are based on?
What did you not understand in the post you are referring to? I ask you this for the sake of efficiency, so as not to reproduce the same errors in a new comment that you will not understand. If something seems inappropriate or incomprehensible to you, I can explain or reformulate.
Then, I promise, I will tackle this:I answered all your questions. Which one did I forget?
It turns out that a dialogue has a purpose. What's yours ? Is it to obtain reasoned answers to the initial questions?
Is global warming man-made? Is it dangerous for nature or humans?
If so, my answer is twice YES. And my thesis is that of rationalism. Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate. The conspiracy scenario is of no use in understanding the problem of global warming. It is solely a denigration of science. Nothing else.
This thesis of warming is mathematically demonstrated. Refer to my previous posts. Particularly on the CRNS. https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/2061562#post2061562
No one thinks scientifically from the denigration of science. The fact that the anthropogenic origin of warming has not been demonstrated is a lie. A warming of 2.4° will be catastrophic at all levels.
Without practicing SamH'ism, your belief in scientific truth leads you to doubt scientific evidence, even before giving yourself the means to know it. What additional evidence do you expect from your interlocutors if you doubt the science? What kind of theses do you expect from them? For what use? And if you don't get one, does that mean that the scientific community is wrong or lying to us, since no kindam on the internet will have been able to convince you of the validity of their arguments?
You will easily find mathematical demonstrations on the internet intended to prove the non-correlation between CO2 of anthropogenic origin and global warming. So what ? What do these demonstrations prove (or are worth) compared to the complex scientific models used to demonstrate the anthropogenic origin of warming? Many things can be proven by mathematics. Even the existence of God. The Bogdanoff brothers tried it. Peace to their souls. Do you believe in god though?
I have given you links to the information. What more do you want to do than read about it? Will you verify all of these theses? Go back to basics? Are you replacing the entire scientific community? Check the algorithms of the predictive models? Then check each of the North Sea beacons to look for any errors? Where is the use here? What vain fantasies is this based on?
If your project is to try to understand, from current data, what humanity might look like with climate change, that's another topic. In this case, I invite you to reformulate your thesis in such a way as to make it useful as a basis for reasoning. And to do this you will have to introduce a societal dimension.
I don't know how the basic principles of Occam's razor and basic philosophical knowledge are taught in Russia? I just hope that wasn't your specialty. Incidentally, not understanding what I am saying does not necessarily make my remarks abstruse.
Too long, maybe ?Aleksandr,
The fact that scientists have been wrong repeatedly throughout history makes little sense here. I mentioned it here, with the same example as you (Pasteur), in one of my responses to SamH.
Indeed, medicine became “scientific” from Pasteur onwards. That hasn't stopped this scientific medicine from still making major errors. But that makes little sense in the current situation.
My English formulation is often not very happy, despite my efforts. I agree with that. No need to play with words. Scientists did not start from the warming thesis to verify it empirically in a truncated manner in order to justify it through oriented studies.
Global warming is an observable reality that can be explained by human activity. Without human activity, the mathematical models used do not simulate global warming. While these models are reliable enough to accurately reproduce any previous climatic epoch. This is the scientific reality of the moment. It is from this reality that we must reason, methodically, to achieve a form of efficiency (at least economic).
A method of analysis that I like (but which is not a dogma) is to strike the idols with hammers. I would not make the affront of attaching links to this concept for a person as cultured as you, accustomed to higher level reasoning.
When I strike the blade of Occam's razor, what does it sing in my ear? It says to me to not take the place of scientists by adding new shaky hypotheses or more or less supported counter-hypotheses. And to avoid discrediting science on principle. This in the name of rationalism and utilitarianism (I will also spare you the references). Even though science is inherently fallible and must always be questioned.
Occam's razor blade suggests this to me in the name of the most elementary logical principle. It is not because science is constantly evolving (or even redefining) that it is always wrong. Otherwise the world today would be very different. We will not, for example, have the possibility of conversing in this way, you and I. Also we must think from tangible reality and not from dogmatic hypotheses which are only judgments on science.
What is the tangible reality? Global warming exists, even SamH agrees. This global warming is already having very real effects which are catastrophic on the natural, economic, societal, civilizational levels, etc. It is not catastrophism to note the sixth mass extinction, the anoxia of rivers and oceans, the destructive meteorological phenomena on a new scale which are displacing populations by the tens of millions. We are not in an apocalyptic projection, but in contemporary reality. The Amplification is also noted here.
The tangible reality is that the warming thesis is not up for debate. To find controversy there, you have to invent it (without proving anything, just by denigrating science on principle).Simple rationality here suggests trying to understand the scientific data, because that is the most plausible explanation. Even it is not an absolute truth.
The blade of Occam's razor also suggests to me to separate the issues of reality. To separate observable reality from the dominant thesis (which explains it today) and from the recommended solutions and their astronomical costs, the political problems that this poses, etc. In order to keep only what is useful for reasoning. Because that’s what it’s all about: pointless reasoning serves no purpose. It’s a truism. That's the general framework.
When I say that your greenhouse thesis must be supported, I am not adding any unnecessary entity. I tell you that from the point of view of rationality, any reasoning on the consequences of global warming must include a societal component. Who will your greenhouse be viable for? within what limits? how long ? at what human cost? On what new economic and political bases will the new human society that will result from these changes function?
To have a fair idea of what is at stake in this reasoning and since you recognize the phenomenon of rising water levels, start with a mental image. Coasts are the most populated places on earth. When the coasts are underwater, with all the economic, health and societal problems that this will cause, what do you see ? A small green planet enhanced by global warming? Or a global catastrophe? How do we live as a society in this new reality?
Formulate an objective hypothesis, and we'll talk about it if you want? In the meantime, I'd like to find some time this weekend to test the D44 patch, and I have some work to catch up on.FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG