NSG Sceptics Society (OOC)

[Wikkiwallana]

What are you sceptical about? Climate change? Vacsinations? North Korea? What ever the hell you are sceptic about, post it here!

You can't really be a skeptic towards climate change or vaccinations, because skepticism implies you have studied and understood the evidence. Anti-climate change and vaccination people are deniers and nutty respectively, not skeptics.

Be fair, some of the vaccine "skeptics" are frightened parents who have been overwhelmed by the push against modern medicine by very loud celebrities.

[Sungai Pusat]

Lemme see.....

Skeptical of:

The spelling of a thread.
The idea of:
socialist
religion
mixed markets
regulated capitalist
unregulated socialist, ok this one is just for a little fun.

Pretty much that. And one of which, you better fix.

[Farnhamia]

You can't really be a skeptic towards climate change or vaccinations, because skepticism implies you have studied and understood the evidence. Anti-climate change and vaccination people are deniers and nutty respectively, not skeptics.

Be fair, some of the vaccine "skeptics" are frightened parents who have been overwhelmed by the push against modern medicine by very loud celebrities.

True, which is itself a tragedy.

[Wikkiwallana]

Why would one be skeptical about climate change or vaccinations? Both are well grounded in science.

good science does not declare consensus. ever.

scientists the world over thought the earth was flat. turned out untrue. scientists the world over thought the earth a sphere. turned out untrue. scientists the world over thought the earth oval-ish- bulging out at the equator. turned out untrue. now it seems, science has determined the earth to alter shape ever so slightly depending on its proximity to the moon and sun but still maintaining a slight bulge near the equator.

consensus, is political. not scientific.

science deals in theory. not fact. gravity, although yet to be disproven, is still referred to as theory.

climate change is a theory to be disputed just as any other theory is to be. with due patience and determination. in the 70s it was global cooling. in the 90s it was global warming. and now it is merely climate change.

we skeptics do not dispute that climate changes. what we dispute is the effect man has on it to begin with, as well as the effect man can possibly hope to accomplish. we are skeptical that the costs of suggested legislation will hinder human progress and development for negligible gain. i.e. the american gov't subsidizing the purchase of hybrid cars to lower an automobiles carbon footprint resulted in no market share growth - hybrids remain below 7% of market share - as well as an impoverishment of millions of people as their tax dollars are stolen by federal bureaucracies.

climate change fanatics misrepresent skeptics. and skeptics all too often do not actually study the science behind climate change, nor do they properly articulate our position against the science.

Good science does too declare consensus, or are you going to dispute atomic theory, germ theory, electromagnetic theory, etc. Without consensus progress would be impossible, as you'd have to reinvent the wheel, quite literally, to begin a scientific career. Good science is about repeatability: if repeated experiments act in accordance with a hypothesis it is eventually declared a theory and considered sound unless something major changes.

[South Norwega]

You can't really be a skeptic towards climate change or vaccinations, because skepticism implies you have studied and understood the evidence. Anti-climate change and vaccination people are deniers and nutty respectively, not skeptics.

Be fair, some of the vaccine "skeptics" are frightened parents who have been overwhelmed by the push against modern medicine by very loud celebrities.

Well then it's the government's fault for not force vaccinating everyone in sight.

[Free Soviets]

I'm skeptical that skeptical is really the correct spelling of sceptical.

see, i worry about the sceptic spelling because i always misread it as septic. and then sceptics start talking about me being a brain in a vat, and i feel ooky.

[Intangelon]

The Earth isn't round, either. It's shaped like a burrito.

(massive points if you get the reference)

[Wikkiwallana]

I'm skeptical that skeptical is really the correct spelling of sceptical.

see, i worry about the sceptic spelling because i always misread it as septic. and then sceptics start talking about me being a brain in a vat, and i feel ooky.

I figure if I was a brain in a vat, I'd have better circulation of CSF around it than I do now, so it wouldn't feel so coated in sludge when I stay up way, way too long.

[Tmutarakhan]

Did anyone else see the thread title and think, NSG Septic Society?

No.

I'm skeptical about that.

[Farnhamia]

I'm skeptical that skeptical is really the correct spelling of sceptical.

see, i worry about the sceptic spelling because i always misread it as septic. and then sceptics start talking about me being a brain in a vat, and i feel ooky.

Do you also feel creepy and kooky? Mysterious and spooky? And altogether ooky?

[Nobel Hobos]

I'm skeptical that skeptical is really the correct spelling of sceptical.

Both are correct. But I avoid 'sceptic' because every other "sce-" word is pronounced with a silent 'c' (or sibilant or something). Examples are 'scene', 'scent' and 'sceptre'. If we pronounced 'sceptic' consistently it would sound ... hey, like "septic".

I also think 'k' is a really cool letter and should be used more, along with 'j', 'v' and 'z'.

[Fartsniffage]

I also think 'k' is a really cool letter and should be used more, along with 'j', 'v' and 'z'.

"Today, NSG has be brought to you by the letter K, the number 7 and a bunch of people talking bollocks about subjects they barely understand."

"Tune in next week."

[Farnhamia]

I'm skeptical that skeptical is really the correct spelling of sceptical.

Both are correct. But I avoid 'sceptic' because every other "sce-" word is pronounced with a silent 'c' (or sibilant or something). Examples are 'scene', 'scent' and 'sceptre'. If we pronounced 'sceptic' consistently it would sound ... hey, like "septic".

I also think 'k' is a really cool letter and should be used more, along with 'j', 'v' and 'z'.

"K" is considered a very funny letter.

[Nobel Hobos]

I also think 'k' is a really cool letter and should be used more, along with 'j', 'v' and 'z'.

"Today, NSG has be brought to you by the letter K, the number 7 and a bunch of people talking bollocks about subjects they barely understand."

Sunny Day
Sweepin' the clouds away
On my way to where the posting's sweet

Can you tell me how to get,
How to get to the Sceptic's Elite?

Come and play
Everything's A-OK
Friendly lunatics there
That's where we meet

Can you tell me how to get
How to get to the Septic Elite?

It's a magic bullshit tide
Every jaw will open wide
To barmy people like you--
As you blame the Jews

What a beautiful
Troll display!
Sweepin' all our minds away
On my way to shoot some gleet

Can you tell me how to get,
How to get to the Skeptic's Elite...

How to get to the Sceptic's Elite...

[Fartsniffage]

"Today, NSG has be brought to you by the letter K, the number 7 and a bunch of people talking bollocks about subjects they barely understand."

Sunny Day
Sweepin' the clouds away
On my way to where the posting's sweet

Can you tell me how to get,
How to get to the Sceptic's Elite?

Come and play
Everything's A-OK
Friendly lunatics there
That's where we meet

Can you tell me how to get
How to get to the Septic Elite?

It's a magic bullshit tide
Every jaw will open wide
To barmy people like you--
As you blame the Jews

What a beautiful
Troll display!
Sweepin' all our minds away
On my way to shoot some gleet

Can you tell me how to get,
How to get to the Skeptic's Elite...

How to get to the Sceptic's Elite...

[Bergnovinaia]

The Earth isn't round, either. It's shaped like a burrito.

(massive points if you get the reference)

Can I phone a friend, Meredith?

[Tmutarakhan]

"Today, NSG has be brought to you by the letter K, the number 7 and a bunch of people talking bollocks about subjects they barely understand."

Why is tonight different from all other nights?

[Farnhamia]

"Today, NSG has be brought to you by the letter K, the number 7 and a bunch of people talking bollocks about subjects they barely understand."

Why is tonight different from all other nights?

BeⓀaⓊse ...

[Fartsniffage]

To answer the OP.

I'm sceptical that humanity can become any better than it currently is. And that makes me a sad panda.

[Norstal]

I'm sceptical that NSG isn't really a bunch of A.I trying to thwart me in every discussion.

[The Southron Nation]

good science does not declare consensus. ever.

scientists the world over thought the earth was flat. turned out untrue. scientists the world over thought the earth a sphere. turned out untrue. scientists the world over thought the earth oval-ish- bulging out at the equator. turned out untrue. now it seems, science has determined the earth to alter shape ever so slightly depending on its proximity to the moon and sun but still maintaining a slight bulge near the equator.

consensus, is political. not scientific.

science deals in theory. not fact. gravity, although yet to be disproven, is still referred to as theory.

climate change is a theory to be disputed just as any other theory is to be. with due patience and determination. in the 70s it was global cooling. in the 90s it was global warming. and now it is merely climate change.

we skeptics do not dispute that climate changes. what we dispute is the effect man has on it to begin with, as well as the effect man can possibly hope to accomplish. we are skeptical that the costs of suggested legislation will hinder human progress and development for negligible gain. i.e. the american gov't subsidizing the purchase of hybrid cars to lower an automobiles carbon footprint resulted in no market share growth - hybrids remain below 7% of market share - as well as an impoverishment of millions of people as their tax dollars are stolen by federal bureaucracies.

climate change fanatics misrepresent skeptics. and skeptics all too often do not actually study the science behind climate change, nor do they properly articulate our position against the science.

So you want climate scientists to decide once and for all what their position is and stick to it? Or am I misunderstanding?

i want them to stick to science and stop using the promise of more gov't funding for advocating more gov't authority as proof of consensus. either that, or admit that they are using political statements backed up with scientific fact to further their personal careers at the expense of taxpayers.

if they were at least honest about it, i'd be less prone to dismiss advocates of particular "scientific consensus" as conspiracy theorists. there is a reason the "9/11 truthers" are viewed as zealots and fanatics, b/c they are. there is, likewise, a reason climate change nazis are viewed with similar contempt.

good scientists are never upset when another person questions their findings. they usually welcome the challenge. ive yet to read of a climatologist that didn't clamor to high heaven that unless his findings were endorsed, and all others censured, the world would come to a screeching halt.

[The Southron Nation]

good science does not declare consensus. ever.

scientists the world over thought the earth was flat. turned out untrue. scientists the world over thought the earth a sphere. turned out untrue. scientists the world over thought the earth oval-ish- bulging out at the equator. turned out untrue. now it seems, science has determined the earth to alter shape ever so slightly depending on its proximity to the moon and sun but still maintaining a slight bulge near the equator.

consensus, is political. not scientific.

science deals in theory. not fact. gravity, although yet to be disproven, is still referred to as theory.

climate change is a theory to be disputed just as any other theory is to be. with due patience and determination. in the 70s it was global cooling. in the 90s it was global warming. and now it is merely climate change.

we skeptics do not dispute that climate changes. what we dispute is the effect man has on it to begin with, as well as the effect man can possibly hope to accomplish. we are skeptical that the costs of suggested legislation will hinder human progress and development for negligible gain. i.e. the american gov't subsidizing the purchase of hybrid cars to lower an automobiles carbon footprint resulted in no market share growth - hybrids remain below 7% of market share - as well as an impoverishment of millions of people as their tax dollars are stolen by federal bureaucracies.

climate change fanatics misrepresent skeptics. and skeptics all too often do not actually study the science behind climate change, nor do they properly articulate our position against the science.

Good science does too declare consensus, or are you going to dispute atomic theory, germ theory, electromagnetic theory, etc. Without consensus progress would be impossible, as you'd have to reinvent the wheel, quite literally, to begin a scientific career. Good science is about repeatability: if repeated experiments act in accordance with a hypothesis it is eventually declared a theory and considered sound unless something major changes.

no. good scientists do not.

they use empirical studies to prove or disprove a hypothesis. until such time as said hypothesis is disproven or substantiated, the theory remains a mere theory. far from fact. atomic theory is, in fact, a poor choice to substantiate your claim as it itself is constantly being revised with the addition of new findings and nuances. it originally replaced the previously held view (held by consensus mind you) that chemicals were the building blocks of matter. even following the discovery of the "invisible atom", atomic theory consensus was further undermined when protons, electrons, and neutrons were discovered to comprise an atom. Particle physics further undermines the consensus previously established that atoms were the new base building block by introducing quarks and other sub-atomic particles.

my point is to illustrate that there can never be a consensus regarding scientific theories as such theories are always ripe for revision and replacement. the zealots who clamor for action now lest the world fall off a cliff are not scientists but rather politicians and hacks (of course politicians are hacks as well). a climatologist is a hack. he demands gov't subsidies and tax payer funded projects that will accomplish nothing in the end.

were climatologists actual scientists they would relish the opportunity to witness global warming as it would spread the stretches of the amazon further. what else but a luscious greenhouse filled with the most varied plant and animal life would result from a warmer earth? the polar ice caps melt yearly. there is no reason to fear this. it is a cyclical event. this event is called summer. it is the politicians masquerading as scientists who fear the loss of influence and prestige, it is they who fear such occurrences. people will not die if the world warms. they will not die if the world cools. human intellect has, according to scientific theories yet to be disproven, advanced to such a stage that humans can survive in the harshest of climes. sister nature has proven herself to be quite resilient to mankind and his adventures as well (the DMZ between the Koreas comes to mind). humans will die however, when trigger happy politicians demand yet more of their finances to support calls to action by sycophants in the scientific community. they will starve or find their lives made more miserable for lack of the finances previously available to them in order that they might avoid mere subsistence.

science is an art in constant flux. it changes day by day. one would think that liberals would relish such an organism. instead that act in the same manner they condemn we conservatives. they say we want to maintain the status quo. what else, but status quo, is massive amounts of new taxation inflicted upon the people to stop the rate of climate change by a fraction of a degree over the next half century. what else, but status quo, is the attempt to stifle environmental changing conditions? liberals, and especially the climatologists among them, are worse than the conservatives they damn. at least the conservatives see what they are.

[Science-Oriented Scots]

they use empirical studies to prove or disprove a hypothesis. until such time as said hypothesis is disproven or substantiated, the theory remains a mere theory. far from fact. atomic theory is, in fact, a poor choice to substantiate your claim as it itself is constantly being revised with the addition of new findings and nuances.

A theory in science is an application of scientific laws, not a guess. A theory, in science, can be a fact. Everything in science is constantly being revised if necessary. You clearly do not understand science at all, but nice try.

[The Southron Nation]

they use empirical studies to prove or disprove a hypothesis. until such time as said hypothesis is disproven or substantiated, the theory remains a mere theory. far from fact. atomic theory is, in fact, a poor choice to substantiate your claim as it itself is constantly being revised with the addition of new findings and nuances.

A theory in science is an application of scientific laws, not a guess. A theory, in science, can be a fact. Everything in science is constantly being revised if necessary. You clearly do not understand science at all, but nice try.

please cite where i claimed science to be guesses? i merely denied the applicability of consensus to define good science. also, please read more of my post.

[Science-Oriented Scots]

A theory in science is an application of scientific laws, not a guess. A theory, in science, can be a fact. Everything in science is constantly being revised if necessary. You clearly do not understand science at all, but nice try.

please cite where i claimed science to be guesses? i merely denied the applicability of consensus to define good science. also, please read more of my post.

I assumed when you said "a theory remains a mere theory". Because a theory can't exactly become anything further in science. I'm not going to read any more when you can't understand this basic concept. I'm willing to bet the rest that follows is of similar quality. Further, no consensus in science is without plenty of data to back it up. Scientists don't just decide for whatever reason to be in consensus about a certain topic. There is a reason there is consensus. Scientists are in consensus about evolution, global climate change, etc. because they are backed up immensely.