[Vision2020] heat wave

[lfalen]

Joe
Thanks for your reasoned response. I can't argue with most of it.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:55:28 -0700
To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] heat wave

> Roger,
> 
> Math is not an empirical science. It is a formal science, just like
> logic. 1 +1 = 2 is a statement that vastly exceeds any set of
> empirical facts that one has to offer. It is true of unicorns -- which
> don't exist -- as well as everything that does exist. The histories of
> math and logic are inseparable because both are formal sciences. As
> far as I know they are the only two formal sciences.
> 
> I don't think I even used the word "philosophy" in any post that I
> sent you. I'm talking about logic. Logic is the science of cogent
> inference. Any time you use an inference, it is a matter of logic as
> to whether the inference is valid (deductive) or strong (inductive)
> because it IS the discipline devoted to answering that question. Maybe
> you are a scientist, but if you don't admit to using inferences in
> science than you're not a good scientist who understands science very
> well.
> 
> Scientists accumulate evidence and draw predictions, theories, and
> other claims from that evidence. Thus, they use arguments. And who is
> to say those arguments are good or bad? Logic just is the formal
> science devoted to that endeavor. You can't have science without
> logic. And if you want to classify logic as part of philosophy, then
> it only follows that philosophy is important to science. It is not
> just me saying this. It is the entire history of Western civilization
> and common sense to boot. Refute it. That too would be hard without
> knowing at least a little bit about logic. You'd have to know what the
> inference or argument was that I was giving and where it went wrong.
> And to that extent, you would just be doing logic.
> 
> Joe
> 
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 8:07 PM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> > Joe
> > You are an emusing peace of work. I am a scientist. You had an off the wall put down when I stated some simple scientific principles. Who is showing a lack of respect? It seems that you are free to criticize, but others are supposed just accept what you say as the final word. I think that there is a considerable difference between philosophy and math. While there may be some room for disagreement on math, it is much more empirical than philosophy. Philosophers disagree all the time. So do economists.
> > The Agricultural Economists( Steven Cooke, John Carleson, Bob Smathers and Joe Guenthner) frequently  are  in disagreement.
> > Roger
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> > Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:12:38 -0700
> > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] heat wave
> >
> >> I'm off the V. My logic is not convoluted. Logic is a discipline as old and as established as math. You would listen if a math prof said you'd made a math mistake. And showing respect you'd strive to understand your mistake. You dismiss me regularly and show a lack of respect, for logic and (given its connection) for science. Joe
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jul 12, 2012, at 8:41 PM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Joe
> >> > It is you that do not understand how hard science works. You should stick to philosophy.  You are wrong about me not reading science. For most of my adult life, I subscribed to The Journal of Dairy Science, The Journal of Animal Science, The Journal of Nutrition  and the Scientist. I currently take about 6 health and nutrition publication. I only take those that are put out by universities. I do not take private health and wellness publications as they as a rule promote some vitamin or herb, which a good share of the time is not grounded in good science, but rely on testimonials. I did not say that I did not believe Climate Scientists in general. I am by nature  a skeptic and think that all research needs to be independently verified. I also subscribe to The Skeptical Inquirer, which by the way supports most climate science. I have never said that you should not criticize people, please allow me to do the same. I have not taken a course in Logic but have read many
philosophers.
> > My
> >> > favorite is Eric Hoffer.  He was a  Longshoreman by  trade but was well grounded in philosophy. Your logic seems to be to obtuse and convoluted.
> >> > I am way behind  on keeping up with vision 2020 posts as I have been hauling hay in this heat. You are more than welcome to help. I will try and review more post when I get the time, which may not be until next week.
> >> > Roger
> >> > -----Original message-----
> >> > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> >> > Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:54:26 -0700
> >> > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> >> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] heat wave
> >> >
> >> >> Roger: You don't even understand logic let alone science. In fact, you
> >> >> take some kind of pride in your level of ignorance, which prevents you
> >> >> from seeking a cure. Then you go ahead and talk to us about climate
> >> >> science!?! As if you understood the issues or even what you were
> >> >> saying!?!
> >> >>
> >> >> I like Paul, I respect Paul. He says things on a public forum and I
> >> >> criticize him -- because other folks are listening and I feel a moral
> >> >> obligation to do so. He feels a need to post, I feel a need to
> >> >> criticize. That's what these venues are for. Better we get ugly than
> >> >> not talk at all, I think.
> >> >>
> >> >> I like you too, Roger. And I'd be that much less of a friend for NOT
> >> >> pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about. Friends
> >> >> don't let friends talk junk.
> >> >>
> >> >> Criticism is not abuse; pointing out that you have no basis for a
> >> >> comment like "everything in science must be verified by multiple
> >> >> reports from independent sources" since YOU DON'T READ SCIENCE
> >> >> JOURNALS and therefore are in no position to say whether or not there
> >> >> are independent sources is (in my mind) a public service.
> >> >>
> >> >> On what basis do you hold your beliefs? You don't believe climate
> >> >> scientists but WHY? Give us one good reason. WHY are the overwhelming
> >> >> majority of climate scientists wrong? Why are the doomsday reports
> >> >> wrong? "Critique the doom sayers, with the The Sky is Falling
> >> >> scenario" is not an argument. It is a slogan. What backs that slogan
> >> >> up?
> >> >>
> >> >> Personal beliefs are fine; keep them to yourself and I could care
> >> >> less. But when you post them here they become something else, and if I
> >> >> disagree with your comments I will criticize them. I'm interested in
> >> >> debate, and arguments, and reasons for belief when the belief is
> >> >> expressed in order to influence PUBLIC POLICY. So get used to it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Best, Joe
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:55 PM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >> >>> Tom
> >> >>> The information I had on the 1980 heat wave was on the local radio station. It was only a degree or two from this one. That is very little difference. Global Warming runs in cycles. Man undoubtedly has some effect. The debate is in how much. It only makes sense to curtail air pollution to the extent that is economically feasible. In the 60's you could routinely smell the Pulp Mill at Lewiston Moscow. That has been cleaned up a lot. Do what is feasible with out putting us back in the Stone Age. Also take a reasonable approach, Critique the doom sayers, with the The Sky is Falling" scenario. Work on the problem is a calm reasonable manner. Science in general have lots of view points. The teutonic Plate theory was originally ridiculed as was the the effect of glaciers on land formation. There has been lots of conflicting reports on Vitamins and Herbs. The research by Wakefield on the effect of vaccinations on Autism was bogus and caused considerable harm. There is a pr!
 oblem
but!
> >> >>>  work on
> >> >>> it with a health skepticism on individual report. Every thing in science needs to be verified by multiple reports from independent sources.
> >> >>> Roger
> >> >>>
> >> >>> =======================================================
> >> >>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >> >>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >> >>>               http://www.fsr.net
> >> >>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> >>> =======================================================
> >> >>
> >>
>