The Skeptic System

[Brass Scorpion]

One of my biggest complaints these days is that you can't say anything no matter how basically factual without someone jumping in and arguing about it. If you say the sky is blue nowadays or the ocean is wet, someone in America will want to argue about it. There is no common ground to talk about anything any longer without being absolutely sure of with whom you are speaking ahead of doing so. Apparently, Bill Maher sees the same problem...

http://www.real-time-with-bill-maher-blog.com/blog/2011/5/5/the-skeptic-system.html?cmpid=ABC127


May 5, 2011
The Skeptic System
by Bill Maher

Like most Americans, I’ll always remember what I was doing at the moment I heard that Osama bin Laden had been killed. But unlike most Americans – or at least the ones on TV – I’m not going to tell you about it. Because, really, nobody gives a crap. Just once, I want somebody to tell Wolf Blitzer that, when some historic event happened, they were smearing peanut butter on their balls – as people do – and that will be the end of it. Well, maybe.

Worse than the people who volunteer too much information, though, are the ones who constantly demand more of it. The people who, no matter the quality or quantity of evidence presented to them, say it isn’t enough. We have “Truthers,” “Birthers” and “Schoolers,” each part of a larger category that I like to call “F**kers.” If they were wizards, their only spell would be casting doubt.

Whether it’s President Obama telling us that bin Laden is dead or a panel of scientists insisting that climate change is real, the response always seems to be “show me a picture” or “more study is needed.” Which is problematic, because Americans suck at studying.

Nevertheless, scientists continue to issue report after report on climate change, each one increasingly dire. This week, the international Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program sounded the alarm that – once again – ocean levels are rising way faster than anyone thought. And not just because we keep dumping bodies into it.

From MSNBC:

“As reflective ice and snow shrink, they expose ever bigger areas of darker water or soil. Those dark regions soak up ever more heat from the sun, in turn stoking a melt of the remaining ice and snow.”

That’s pretty straightforward. In fact, there’s even a term for it called the “snowball effect.” Which is ironic, because in this case it means that we’re running out of snowballs. It would be great if, for once, a prominent Republican looked at these facts and, instead of saying “I think this needs more study,” said, “I think I just crapped my pants – let’s fix this.”

But they don’t – and won’t. Because that’s what happens when you fancy yourself a “skeptic.” The Greek philosopher, Pyrrho (the O.G. of skepticism), argued that, “happiness comes from suspending judgment because certainty of knowledge is impossible.” He lived around 300 BC. If you still hold onto that philosophy today – when certainty of knowledge is possible – you’re not a skeptic. You’re an *******.

Now where’d I put that peanut butter?

[Skragger]

I've certainly noticed a change around here over the last few weeks. People seem to be getting snarkier and more devisive over really smally things. Its disheartening :(

[Necron2.0]

I DISAGREE AND WANT TO SHOUT AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS ON HOW MUCH I DISAGREE!!!!



The problem is two-fold, I believe. Sure, in some cases it is that the skeptics don't seem to have the ability to shut their mouths and engage their brains. In other cases, however, it is a matter of the "inconvenient truths" actually being "inconvenient half-truths" or "inconvenient bold-faced lies being held in place by a rigorous shouting campaign coupled with the stiffling of all contradictory information."

In an environment where all sides are more interested in giving you their interpretation of the facts, rather than ... the facts (full stop), how can you not be skeptical to some degree? I miss Walter Cronkite. In his day, reporters would just tell you what happenned, without "indepth analysis" of why it happenned. I can jump to the wrong conclusions as easily as any bleach-blond media bobble-head, thank you very much.

[Denzark]

Is this fellow not simply being a skeptic about people's right to question?

On the other hand too many people need to shut up and do what they're told.

[DarkLink]

In other cases, however, it is a matter of the "inconvenient truths" actually being "inconvenient half-truths" or "inconvenient bold-faced lies being held in place by a rigorous shouting campaign coupled with the stiffling of all contradictory information."


Exactly. In the case of global warming, yes there is climate change and environmental problems. But many of the proponents of the whole green move are pushing it in ways that aren't precisely relevant and are often more harmful than the current status quo. Look a Hybrids, for example. Do you know what goes into batteries? And what happens when you have to replace that massive battery pack every five years? Even though you get slightly better gas mileage, you're probably hurting the environment more than before.

And, on the other hand, people who don't like global warming will take little facts like that and blow it up to try and say that there is no climate change.

Of course, climate change probably isn't caused by humans (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#), but again who's to blame isn't really relevant. Who's to blame is more of a political sticking point that people shout themselves hoarse over instead of actually looking at the real problem.

All of it comes back to what Maher is talking about. Instead of looking at facts, people just blindly follow (or refuse to follow) whatever 'experts' they decide they want to.

[Gotthammer]

One of my biggest complaints these days is that you can't say anything no matter how basically factual without someone jumping in and arguing about it.


I disagree.

[Skragger]

People are essentially stupid. I think we can all agree to that. Especially those of us who've worked in customer service. The issue becomes "We need to give people the facts, but we need to make sure they understand the facts". I'll provide you with an example of good vs poor in this case.

Case 1 (good): "Stephen Harper Prorogues Governement because he feels that under a minority government not enough action can take place because the opposition coalition have the ability to block any proposals put forward by his party if they all vote together. The effects of suspending parliment are this: XXX YYY ZZZ"

This is quality journalism, because it presents the what, and the why, and then leaves it at that.

Casr 2 (poor): "Stephen Harper Prorogues Government because he is afraid to answer questions about the Helena Geurgis issues, the slipping decline of education, and other social programs. By suspending parliment he doesn't need to deal with coalition opposition stopping every of his ideas."

The issue arises in this: People don't want to know the what and why in hard, solid facts, and then left to figure out what to think themselves. That involves effort, deep thought, and in some cases, research into cause and effect. I can say "Harper prorogues government" and then say "What do you think about that?" And unless you're either a) active in keeping ontop of this information already, or b) given time to research, your opinions most likely wont be well thought out or indepth. Valid, but shallow and immediate.

On the other chainfist, if I say "Harper prorogues government and thats bad" Then you don't need to think on it at all. You've been told its bad and by the Emperor its bad! Especially if a shouting head in a suit tells you its bad. No thought needed, no prior knowledge or research.

Thats the problem in the end. People would rather be told what to think than actually form their own thoughts and opinions.

The other issue arises from society as well. The issue of opinions. Generally there is a singularly accepted opinion in the world on something "i.e poverty in africa is bad!" and if anyone has any divergent opinions on that, they're suddenly terrible, terrible people because it goes against the norms. So if someone says "Yes, poverty in Africa is terrible, HOWEVER, if Africa were to suddenly rocket to first world status, the drain on our already taxed food, water, and other resources would cripple other countries, case and point, the rise of the chinese middle class" <- its a valid opinion, and perfectly true. But its not whats consitered the norm, so its immediately evil, and wrong.

If people were to stop, look at all the facts, the big picture, learn and research then they'd come to the same conclusions, and either decide: "well, nuts to Africa" or "well, Im prepared to give up some things so that maybe another country can have more". Thats how real change in the world starts. And I don't mean that weak, suburban change (I'm going install low wattage lightbulbs and drive my SUV less!" but real change: "I'm going to go with a volunteer group to Kenya and help build a school for children this summer".

But again, that takes effort. Its easier to do small things and say "I'm helping" and to have a yelling head summarise it for you (and thusly it becomes their opinion rather than hard fact), and just say "starving people are bad! Now shut up cause "ow my balls" is on!"

[Brass Scorpion]

It's gotten so bad everything is considered a subjective statement or opinion by some people. Some American "skeptics" are even too "intelligence challenged" to believe bin Laden is dead, but his "buddies" in Al Qaeda are admitting it.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/06/6596223-never-mind-the-head-on-the-pike

Never mind the head on the pike
By Laura Conaway
-
Fri May 6, 2011 9:03 AM EDT


Al Qaeda has admitted what the deathers may never: Osama bin Laden is dead. "We stress that the blood of the holy warrior sheik, Osama bin Laden, God bless him, is precious to us and to all Muslims and will not go in vain," the group said, in a new statement. "We will remain, God willing, a curse chasing the Americans and their agents, following them outside and inside their countries. . . Soon, God willing, their happiness will turn to sadness. Their blood will be mingled with their tears."

Terrorist posturing notwithstanding, this one's almost over, former Naval intelligence officer Malcolm Nance told us last night. Al Qaeda had already been swept aside in the pro-democracy Arab Spring. Now, with the death of bin Laden, al Qaeda unravels into history. "Will they actually carry out operations? Quite possible," Mr. Nance said. "Will they be successful? In some occasions, they might be. But do they have a future in the Muslim world? Not anymore."

[Necron2.0]

Exactly. In the case of global warming, yes there is climate change and environmental problems. But many of the proponents of the whole green move are pushing it in ways that aren't precisely relevant and are often more harmful than the current status quo. Look a Hybrids, for example. Do you know what goes into batteries? And what happens when you have to replace that massive battery pack every five years? Even though you get slightly better gas mileage, you're probably hurting the environment more than before.

I liken the global warming hysteria to a modern day rain dance. Native Americans tried to dance down the rain. Today we're trying to "correct" climate change through similar uselessly wild gyrations.

Do I believe the Earth is warming up? Yes, in the same way that several other planets in our Solar system are warming up too. Do I think man is the cause? Definitely not the root cause, although we may be contributing to the natural trend in a very small way. Do I think man can "correct" the problem? Hell no. First, I don't classify the situation as a problem - it's part of the Earth's natural cycle. Second, even if man had a significant role to play in bringing the situation to where it is, at this point nothing short of a drastic change would be able to reverse the momentum. Certainly none of the band-aid solutions (carbon credits, wind power, solar power, etc.) will do anything beyond making a bunch of hippy tree-huggers feel all warm and fuzzy. If someone really and truly believes man is responsible, and they're serious about reducing man's impact, then there is only one valid solution ... kill 2 out of every 3 people on Earth - drop the world population from 6 billion to 2 billion immediately. Now, that's a solution I'm not really willing to embrace.

So, if we're heading into a disaster of Biblical proportions, maybe we should be looking at a Biblical answer (as in one described in the Bible). Instead of wasting all this energy and resources trying to avert the disaster, maybe we should be looking for ways we can ride it out. Maybe we should be stockpiling food instead of wasting it for ethanol. Maybe we should be building grain silos instead of windmills. Perhaps we should get serious about researching biospheres instead of biofuels. Maybe we should be smart instead of reactionary.

[DarkLink]

Ethanol as a fuel source is one of the most genuinely stupid things people think is a good idea. First off, the world doesn't have enough food to go around as it is. We may be plump in America and Europe, but everywhere else?

Secondly, if you converted every single acre of farmland in the entire world to fuel production (at which point 90% of humanity starves to death and most every edible animal is hunted to extinction), you would only meet something like 30% of America's current fuel demand. Just America.

[Brad]

lol here in New Zealand we had a major earthquake the other month, couple hundy people died, we then had a so called expert on tv say that major earthquakes only happen 2 weeks either side of a full moon....hmmmm that doesn't really leave much now does it


All of it comes back to what Maher is talking about. Instead of looking at facts, people just blindly follow (or refuse to follow) whatever 'experts' they decide they want to.

This expert is really onto it IMO:(