Talk-Polywell.org

Here's an interesting post on how opposition to nuclear energy works. the same kinds of tactic are used for other things by the Progressives.:
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/1 ... clear.html

A great find! We should dedicate this thread to refuting fallacious arguments that we find on this forum. Evidently there are at least 38 types of fallacious arguments and I expect most of them have been used on this forum. I particularly like this fallacious argument.

If you know that you have no reply to the arguments which your opponent advances, you may, by a fine stroke of irony, declare yourself to be an incompetent judge: “What you now say passes my poor powers of comprehension; it may be all very true, but I can’t understand it, and I refrain from any expression of opinion on it.” In this way you insinuate to the bystanders, with whom you are in good repute, that what your opponent says is nonsense.

Of course if someone were to make such a post, that someone should then make like a turtle, pull his/her head in and let the repercussions bounce off the shell.

Funny thing is the author is a progressive and fails to see how his post relates to his political philosophy.

And guess what? His degree is in philosophy. In other words his understanding is very narrow. He knows nukes from his father and the arguments of philosophy. Other than that he is a technological ignoramus.

I did try to bring him up to speed on control theory.

Thanks MSimon, its almost like we scripted this! How is it that you make your living again?

All should note that the link in the initial post is not about the author, rather it is about Arthur Schopenhauer whom I now quote:

“Journalists are like dogs, when ever anything moves they begin to bark.”

Now I will make like a turtle!

Aero wrote:Thanks MSimon, its almost like we scripted this! How is it that you make your living again?

All should note that the link in the initial post is not about the author, rather it is about Arthur Schopenhauer whom I now quote:

“Journalists are like dogs, when ever anything moves they begin to bark.”

Now I will make like a turtle!

I should have been more explicit. The post itself is good. But from reading other parts of his blog I came to my conclusion.

It has been my experience that folks who are in the humanities can't run the numbers and are ignorant of engineering i.e. proven science, and thus are prone to believe the most fantastic things.

Engineers are in the main generalists. Thus can look at arguments from many different sides including philosophy. The knowledge of most of the rest of humanity is rather narrow.

I have seen engineers hold their own in discussions of philosophy. It is a common event. The number of philosophers who can argue control theory is much more limited (I'm talking rates not counts).

It is essentially the problem of programming: you can simulate any kind of world you want with programs. Simulating reality is a much more restrictive task.

He is in fact a competent defender of nuclear power, and he gets bashed by liberals on DU fairly regularly. I suppose he has no fans with anyone. (This makes me like him more.)

Here is the thread I was talking about:

http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... nment.html

and my most recent response (not yet approved):

Since you are so strong in reactors may I suggest you look at reactor theory.

And find out why gains of greater than one - positive reactivity coefficient - (as posited in climate science) lead to runaway heating/cooling. And not in a century but in a year or less.

Here is something I wrote on the subject as it relates to climate science including a bit on reactor control theory.

And scientists have believed a lot of crazy stuff in the past (butter or margarine?) Or phlogiston.

And remember - bicycle mechanics invented the airplane - not scientists. James Watt made the steam engine practical.

Engineers are harder to fool because they are tested by the real world.

There was a philosopher of science who once said something to the effect

"Science advances not by new theories over coming the old in scientists. It is advanced with the death of scientists".

So I don't expect you to change your mind.

In any case the need for new energy sources is a sounder basis for promotion of nuclear energy than a theory which may prove false no matter how many are convinced.

As Einstein said: "It only takes one." And you know in his day the old scientists were not convinced. In fact Einstein didn't like quantum physics. So the fact that you have consensus or I have consensus (pick your group) is meaningless.

But as I said control theory in general and reactor control theory in particular says the AGW catastrophism is not very likely.

I can be convinced. Explain to me how control theory supports high gains (greater than and much greater than one posited by the current claimed consensus in climate science).

The one attempt I have seen that comports with delayed neutrons in reactor control theory, heat in the pipeline, has not been found.

Now do I believe that a doubling of CO2 will (with no other factors) cause a 1 C rise in temperature? Yes. That is not controversial.

What the argument now is about is this: is the gain less than one? A gain of .5 +/- .1 is a number I have seen - arrived at by different methods or is the gain of the system between 1.5 to 4 or more?

You might want to compare a Schmidt Trigger to a feedback amplifier.

Any way. The above is why the engineers have a harder time with the assumptions of the majority of the IPCC scientists.

Again: my guess is that you do not have the tools to personally evaluate the above.

C.P. Snow outlined the problem a long time ago. Philosophy and natural philosophy have diverged.

BTW your piece on Schopenhauer is what brought me here. It is a good one. Your error is that you are reduced to arguing by analogy rather than being able to argue from what we absolutely know (engineering). And why do I leave science out? Because unless science is tested by engineering its conclusions are tentative.

After all Carnot came after Watt. i.e. we had practical steam engines before we understood even a little of the thermodynamics.

Josh Cryer wrote:He is in fact a competent defender of nuclear power, and he gets bashed by liberals on DU fairly regularly. I suppose he has no fans with anyone. (This makes me like him more.)

I support him on nuclear and oppose him on CAGW and his economic theories.

OTOH the DU folks might have the support/oppose positions reversed.

Engineers are harder to fool because they are tested by the real world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_hypothesis

Anyone can be fooled. The question is whether or not you are trying to do your best not to be fooled by those who might try to do so (either through ignorance or malice).

D'Alio is a perfect example. I'm starting to compile instances, as per your suggestion. I will post the blog I created soon, after I do an NCDC <-> GHCN analysis.

Engineers are harder to fool because they are tested by the real world.

Josh Cryer wrote:

Engineers are harder to fool because they are tested by the real world.

:roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_hypothesis

Anyone can be fooled. The question is whether or not you are trying to do your best not to be fooled by those who might try to do so (either through ignorance or malice).

D'Alio is a perfect example. I'm starting to compile instances, as per your suggestion. I will post the blog I created soon, after I do an NCDC <-> GHCN analysis.

Excellent.

It is how science should be done.

What do you think of the Salem hypothesis MSimon? If engineers were harder to fool, why would so many of them be scientific creationists?

Involvement by engineers in "the rather difficult subjects of thermodynamics and fluid mechanics", allowing them to "develop confusing and yet authoritative-sounding arguments which are unintelligible to laymen."

The "I don't understand it so it must have flaws" is of course an invalid argument.

BTW the study you cited is not helpful in determining whether what I said is correct. You would have to do a survey of a sample of engineers.

And then you have the selection bias problem: perhaps they get promoted to leaders because "engineer" lends more weight than "minister" or "plumber".

====

And here is me against a creationist. It is live so feel free to join in:

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/04 ... us-science

BTW I once worked for one of the best computer engineers in the world (at the time) who was totally into UFOs. So I'm not unfamiliar with the problem.

BTW I'm betting that d'Aiello (sp?) will be more receptive to your corrections than Mann was re: the Hockey Stick.

We will have data on that hypothesis soon enough.

chiefio is weaseling over it. I doubt D'Alio will say much. I suspect both will continue pretending the analysis is meaningful. chiefio seems to think it's still relevant.