mikeh, on 2016-December-06, 11:35, said:
No. It means we disagree about language...about what a word means. What on earth does that have to do with whether either of us is stating something that we either know to be untrue or, and this is a little more subtle, something that we don't know one way or the other, and don't care. In law, at least in countries that inherited a common law approach to jurisprudence, one commits civil (not necessarily criminal)fraud when one says something that is false and has said it with a 'reckless disregard' for whether it is true. It is for the court to assess that factor, using what is called an objective test. Would a reasonable man....
Apparent untruths may be due to different uses of a word e.g. "alt-right"
mikeh, on 2016-December-06, 11:35, said:
I do disagree. I think that most theists display an astounding arrogance....easily the equivalent of most atheists, tho I concede that my arrogance tends towards the high end of the spectrum. Think about the arrogance inherent in believing that any human, let alone the believer in question, is the object of the creation of the universe! Think about the arrogance inherent in claiming that I and only those who think like I do will live forever in heaven and the rest of you will burn in hell forever (or whatever equivalent your particular religion espouses). The universe is some 13.4 billion years old, iirc, and comprises a near infinite volume of space and contains an essentially infinite number of stars, planets etc, and all of this was created in order that we should exist? Billions of stars, billions of planets. novas and supernovas, quasars, nebulae, etc all for no purpose at all, other than to impress us....even tho most of it happened billions of years before 'us' existed?
And you call atheists arrogant?????
.
I agree that a difference of opinion here doesn't make either of us liars. This is a value judgement. There is always some risk of unintended consequence in any human activity. I happen to think that, properly regulated, GMO foods can provide us with needed resources. That doesn't mean that I endorse the predatory practices of some of the GMO companies, nor that I am blind to the risks, especially of promoting monocultures.
Unless your bright scientific friends happen to hold doctorates in climate science, they have little more standing to debate this issue than do you and I. I am a pretty fair trial lawyer, but you wouldn't want to ask me to help structure a corporate merger, yet you'd definitely need a lawyer or two to do so. You'd want someone with expertise. I wouldn't ask a particle physicist to opine on the structure of the mitochondria of a human cell, nor a geneticist to operate CERN.
Strangely, I prefer to listen to the consensus of the 'bright scientific people' who actually know something about the subject. My having an IQ of 'x' doesn't make me a good merger and acquisitions lawyer, and your friends, bright tho they no doubt are, are not thereby climate scientists...unless, of course, they are.
.
Whether they are liars or even stupid liars depends on the facts, does it not? I assume they have some facts upon which they rely in coming to that opinion. As it happens, I think there is little doubt but that many clean energy solutions are uneconomical in their early stages, and may even always be uneconomical compared to some alternatives, but the analysis isn't simple. For example, how do we assess the real costs of fossil fuels, in terms of the harm burning fossil fuels does to the environment? But unless either side is using made up facts or ignoring relevant facts, then this is a value judgement, and a true matter of opinion.
In relevant BBO threads, members are criticised as being stupid or lying. I agree, however, that two people can hold contradictory opinions on a scientific controversy without either being stupid of a liar.
Perhaps we should be wary of over-reliance on authority, establishing what facts we can; doing our best to understand whatever expert-arguments are in vogue; but often preferring our own judgement.
mikeh, on 2016-December-06, 11:35, said:
What has [calling a person's ideas bullshit] to do with lying or stupidity?
IMO, labelling an opinion as bullshit does not make it untrue or stupid.
mikeh, on 2016-December-06, 11:35, said:
This is a complex question [rationalisation in UI rulings], and answering it requires discussing how the mind works. I have no doubt but that in some cases lying is happening. I also accept that in many and probably most cases we don't have lying as such. My own take on the matter is that most people are able to convince themselves, unconsciously, that they didn't use UI. This, btw, is why I often comment, when shown two hands where we are asked to construct an auction to the optimum spot, that it is impossible for me to do so. Awareness of what that spot is will inevitably affect how we see the bidding. It isn't possible for (most) humans to be objective. I'd say nobody can be, but I don't have the evidence to be that categorical.
I find it hard to tell if somebody is lying or believes what he says.
mikeh, on 2016-December-06, 11:35, said:
No, but your reference to it [Newton and Alchemy] shows that you are somewhat ignorant.
I admit ignorance on many subjects but would prefer that you refrain from pointing out such deficiencies and patronising me.
mikeh, on 2016-December-06, 11:35, said:
Newton was one of the most intelligent humans who has ever lived. However, that intelligence functioned in an era in which very little was known of how the universe functioned. Chemistry was unknown, at least in the modern sense. The atomic nature of matter was unknown. Heck, even Newtonian physics was unknown until newton came up with his insights.
A belief in alchemy was not irrational for him in his situation. A belief in the notion that thunder and lightning reflected anger on the part of a god was not irrational 10,000 years ago. I mean, how on earth would a human in the stone age work out that there were warm and cold masses of air coming into contact, with differing electrical charges, and that lightning was a discharge of electrons and photons, and thunder was the vibration of disrupted air?
Never judge people out of their context.
That consideration still applies today;
Another relevant example would be Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech. Arguably, he was mistaken but not stupid or a liar.
mikeh, on 2016-December-06, 11:35, said:
See above for the civil definition of fraud. It is as dishonest, imo, to state as fact something that you do not know to be fact and in respect of which you don't care if it is true. A lot of people say things that they would like to be true, and because they want it to be true, they don't make any effort at all to see whether it is. Once in a while they will be lucky (or the people believing them will be lucky) and what they have guessed is actually true, but in most cases that won't be so.
I'm unsure about most things. IMO. If we had to wait for near-certainty, only fools could state opinions. Few people would be able to do anything at all.
mikeh, on 2016-December-06, 11:35, said:
It's sort of like the difference between theists and atheists discussing the existence of god. Theists like to point out that it is impossible to prove that god doesn't exist. Therefore, since it cannot be proven that god doesn't exist, a belief that it does is rational. Atheists point out that when one is suggesting an extraordinary proposition, one should have the burden of proof. Anyone raised in a culture that has no theistic underpinning would pretty clearly, imo, prefer the atheist logic. As Laplace said, to Napoleon, when asked why his mathematical masterpiece made no reference to god: I have no need of that hypothesis.
.
I have responded point by point to your post in order to show that your points appear to have nothing to do with the apparent purpose of your post. Nothing you wrote seems to me to be relevant to whether my criticisms of K and jon have merit.
In that case I've wasted my time, again.
Also, I doubt that personal attacks have merit in this context. You might employ such tactics, attempting to discredit a hostile witness, in court. They seem inappropriate, however, when discussing topics, in a friendly forum. I prefer it when you state facts and present arguments about the issues.
Help
) and has no preconceived notions. While what you are saying is possible for Hannity, I have some evidence that it is not the case fr Limbaugh. I believe he started his conservative talk show in the 1980's when it wasn't popular. If he was into pulling off a scam and making a buck, he had many easier ways to do it, as it was difficult for him to get sponsors at the time. He claims to have had to give away advertising time on his show for free in order to prove to advertisers that it was worthwhile to advertise on his show. From your POV, he was essentially gambling several years of his life on an untested sham or an unproven method of making money.
