Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....

<http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/12/mike-rowe-destroys-woman-who-wants-him-fired-for-being-ultra-right-wing-conservative/
        
                                        ...Jim Thompson
--  
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....
On 01/12/2018 05:03 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Wow, a world-famous person "destroyed" some crazy nobody on Facebook who  
wrote a comment. I'm impressed.


Re: Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....
On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 5:38:33 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
im-fired-for-being-ultra-right-wing-conservative/>
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Rowe is an idiot who just made things worse for himself depending on the ta
rget audience. If the idiot is a climate change denier or espouses some oth
er idiotic view of some other unrelated subject, people are not going to wa
nt to even listen to him and will turn the channel. Atmospheric physics is  
not cosmology.

Re: Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:38:24 -0500, bitrex

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Bitrex, You are a known idiot on this newsgroup... even excluding
matters politic.  Are you too ignorant to realize?
        
                                        ...Jim Thompson
--  
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....
On 01/12/2018 06:21 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I want to see Mike Rowe "destroy" a working quantum cosmologist with his  
erudite "Science was wrong before"-argument on the topic of black holes.  
That I'd pay to see.

<https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before

Re: Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....
On 1/12/2018 5:35 PM, bitrex wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  His argument would not be "Science was wrong before",
  he would ask, What is the weakest evidence for the theory that black holes
  exist?
  What are just a few reasons that other scientists
think that black holes don't exist?
  As a scientist which one of those reasons have the most merit?
   He's not out to say he knows a theory either way, he's just asking  
questions, if a scientist can't hold up to the question, well...

                             Mikek


Re: Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....
On 01/14/2018 11:31 AM, amdx wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Quoted text here. Click to load it


Quoted text here. Click to load it


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Quoted text here. Click to load it

<https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

<https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Re: Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....
On 01/14/2018 11:31 AM, amdx wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Quoted text here. Click to load it


Quoted text here. Click to load it

All questions to which answers are readily available from the most  
well-credentialed authorities via a quick Google search. If he finds  
what he finds unsatisfying well unfortunately that's the best people  
got, take it or leave it.

Guys like Rowe I think tend to idealize the notion of the lone genius  
who manages to overthrow decades of scientific thought or consensus and  
"prove them all wrong"; to the highly ego-driven this is an appealing  
storyline that satisfies some personal need. And it's not like it hasn't  
happened, it's just that it's the extreme exception, not the rule.

To say that it's a recent development for science to question the  
existence of black holes is ignorant of history, there have been papers  
published with regularity for decades laying out mathematical arguments  
of the same. Neither Rowe nor myself could likely understand the  
arguments they make, but in the scientific community the consensus seems  
to have been that they are all fatally flawed in some way. And again, I  
likely would not have the technical skill to understand the  
counter-arguments. So who knows. Maybe it's all not real and we don't  
know anything about anything. I'm not sure that this is a particularly  
productive line of thought, though.



Re: Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....
On Sunday, 14 January 2018 21:15:54 UTC, bitrex  wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Such people have been happening for a very long time, so I'm not sure I'd c
all it extreme exception. People like it I think largely because it's remar
kable how single individuals working alone sometimes manage to outdo entire
 research teams. It's not ego, it's ingenuity. Who doesn't like that.


NT

Re: Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....
On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 1:18:02 PM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
t  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 call it extreme exception.

It doesn't happen often. Continental drift and hector pylori are the only e
xamples I can come up with from recent decades.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
uals working alone sometimes manage to outdo entire research teams. It's no
t ego, it's ingenuity. Who doesn't like that.

It's easier to think outside the box if you aren't in the same box as all t
he other thinkers. Preconceptions need to be examined from time to time - b
rain-storming is famously aimed at getting people out of the familiar rut,  
but there's a tendency to emphasise the comic content and lose the search f
or incongruity.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Re: Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....
On 01/12/2018 06:21 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Sounds good to me. If offered the choice I'd rather be the one idiot in  
a room full of smart people than the one smart person talking to a bunch  
of idiots for sure, because what kind of idiot associates with idiots?

Re: Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....
On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 6:51:06 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That would be the idiotic idiot.

Re: Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....
On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 10:21:26 AM UTC+11, Jim Thompson wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Jim Thompson share's krw's enthusiasm for using word "idiot" to denote "somebody who disagrees with him".

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that only idiots could dispute his remarkably ill-informed view of the world, but he's wrong here, as he is on many other subjects.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....
On 01/12/2018 09:57 PM, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

If lack of experience is claimed to be an unqualified virtue in  
politics, and habitual skepticism/rejection of claims made by experts an  
unqualified virtue in science, I'm curious why they shouldn't also be  
considered virtues in engineering. So far, no one has been able to  
explain the difference to me. But I was always a slow learner.

Re: Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....
On 13/01/18 03:09, bitrex wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Indeed.

An older version of that in the UK was that someone
with "the proper breeding" would prove to be more
successful amateur than the local professional.

When I was a kid there were /many/ fictional characters
like that.

Re: Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....
On 01/13/2018 04:53 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Sherlock Holmes is one; IIRC not even a on-the-record employee of the
police but always makes the right conclusion while they don't. As an
official employee Lestrade's role is more-or-less to be wrong about
everything.

Gumption, can-do attitude, and especially being born into the right  
class/knowing the right people make a fine substitute for study and  
experience. "Americans believe America is exceptional because it exists  
and it exists because it is exceptional" - de Tocqueville wrote  
something similar to that about America circa early 1800s.

The cynical but probably reductive view of why characters like that
are pushed is that selling the fantasy that anyone can be anything
they want to be "with the right attitude" is probably pretty profitable.

Re: Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....
On 13/01/18 11:03, bitrex wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Some of the UK stuff was the exact opposite - you couldn't
succeed without the right breeding.

The one I particularly remember was Dorothy L Sayer's Lord
Peter Wimsey series. ISTR having the feeling that she was
a snob sucking up to "the higher orders". There was too much
deference back then.

Re: Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....
On 01/13/2018 06:14 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Right, and conversely in the US, probably partly because of "historical  
reasons", it's the underdog/brilliant outsider/Good Will Hunting-type  
that shows up all the proper, stuffy suckups what THE TRUTH is.

"Consensus" is thought of as conspiracy. If a bunch of so-called experts
agree on something that I don't agree with, the explanation must be that
they do so to hide the truth from me/hold me back/make my life  
difficult. I mean why else would anyone do anything in life if it
didn't relate to _me_ personally somehow

Re: Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....
On Saturday, 13 January 2018 11:04:07 UTC, bitrex  wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

cs,
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think you've got Sherlock entirely wrong. His asset was logic, not breedi
ng or class. We've all seen experienced employees screw things up due to fa
ilure to think logically, and sometimes it's easy to see the solution despi
te no experience in the field if you have logic on your side. Sherlock stan
ds for and promotes philosophy, nothing else. In the 1800s it would be almo
st inevitable that someone with such a skill would be well educated, so he  
was.

Contributors in this thread wish to pit experience against something else:  
the reality is that both win at different times. To claim that either one c
ould never win is folly.


NT

Re: Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:59:35 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And sometimes, in politics, the people just don't want the same old
thing (hag).

Site Timeline