Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Fixed with the official CC embed annnnd ... *blocked. So lame that a video about Australia would be blocked for Australian viewers.

Fuck you Comedy Central, you've won this battle - if not the war.

I lost a lot of respect for Chomsky while watching this. He has completely bought into the myth of consensus in the climate science community and seems to actually believe it is only those with a vested interest who do not support the climate scare.

Here are two of my pieces on the 97% of scientists agree" myth:

http://www.fcpp.org/blog/pbs-frontline-climate-change-special-cites-bogus-consensus/

http://www.fcpp.org/blog/like-doren-and-zimmerman-the-pnas-denier-black-list-paper-also-falls-flat/

Here is ICSC's open letter to the UN Sec Gen - are all these people oil-funded deniers. Norm, your statements in this regard are not only wrong, they are not credible:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon
-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/

Tom Harris
International Climate Science Coalition

This guy is an idiot.

His explanations are as logical as Bobby Henderson's linking of average global temperature to the number of pirates in his Open Letter to Kansas School Board.

personally, I appreciate Lawrence Lessig's more nuanced understanding of the Citizen's United ruling.

Here is the TV stations apology (from the link in the description):
"An open letter to all netizens and viewers: Hi everyone, one of our news reports which aired last night has made everyone laugh. This incident has been widely followed, shared and commented on. As our reporter was still very young and unwise to the ways of the world, this report has brought great inconvenience to everyone. We'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone from the bottom of our hearts for your criticism and correction. Please forgive our oversight!"

<pedophilia joke>>> ^brycewi19:

If you're so in love with the universe Henry, why don't you just marry it!
(Sorry, that was the eight year old in me talking!)

>> ^Lolthien:

>> ^renatojj:
Yes, let's please anthropomorphize the universe and worship it, I don't see any danger in that.

Are you being sarcastic? I cannot tell.


I also cannot tell if you are being sarcastic.

>> ^renatojj:

Yes, let's please anthropomorphize the universe and worship it, I don't see any danger in that.


Are you being sarcastic? I cannot tell.

Your video, One Minute Physics - Open Letter to the Universe, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

In reply to this comment by SlipperyPete:
I like this blog post written last week, and now updated with this very vid:
http://translatingtheprintempse
rable.tumblr.com/post/23754797322/an-open-letter-to-the-mainstream-english-media

*quality stuff - more attention needs to be paid here.

Thanks for the bump, and for the link!!

I like this blog post written last week, and now updated with this very vid:
http://translatingtheprintempserable.tumblr.com/post/23754797322/an-open-letter-to-the-mainstream-english-media

*quality stuff - more attention needs to be paid here.

You're confusing the philosophy of "empiricism" with "empirical data". The two are semantically related, but the former derives its name from the latter, not the other way around, just as stoic people are not necessarily stoicists, nor all humans humanitarian, nor all who exist existentialist.

The scientific method is founded upon empiricism:

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

I'll let some physics majors sort you out on this one:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-184699.html

Science is based on no philosophy. The scientific method can be derived entirely from logic, which Craig just told us is a rational thing to believe in (I agree). It happens that the scientific method can only be applied to empirical data (which is separate from the philosophy of empiricism), which is defined simply as information gathered from the senses. This has nothing to do with beliefs about what is knowable. Nothing in science suggests any opinion on what else is knowable or not, just what appears to be or not to be a candidate for experiment. Science is incapable of determining whether abortion is morally wrong, and it takes no stance on whether that information is knowable. That's a question for philosophers and such.

I think you're forgetting that scientists are not objective, and must interpret the data, which can have as much to do with philosophy and belief as anything else. Check this out:

http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/sci/sm6.htm

I can also give you an example. At www.cosmologystatement.org there is an open letter to the scientific community, which is signed by over 500 scientists who doubt the big bang theory. These aren't creationists, btw. An excerpt:

"big bang relies on a growing number of never observed entities. inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc, it cant survive without these fudge factors..in no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by the astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. so discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.

this reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry."

This was published in New Scientist magazine in 2004.

Are you still dubious of science, or just empiricism now? If you still are, can you point to any faulty information or conclusions science has arrived at that you are dubious about? Or if I've improperly worded the question to best get at your issues with science, please provide some specifics about science's methods, conclusions, or whatever that give you discomfort.

My trouble with empiricism is really more of a philosophical issue. I know empiricism can get results which are trustworthy, although the conclusions that people draw from them are a different story. I really just a have problem with things which aren't science; ie, theories or practices which have no hard evidence, which cannot be been tested or observed. I'll list them:

Big Bang Cosmology
Radiometric Dating
Uniformitarian Geology
Macro Evolution

>> ^messenger

Thanks for the quality!

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
Sean Carroll a senior research associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology has a blog on the Discover Magazine website--Cosmic Variance--this is his take on this.
Brutality

Includes links to petitions and open letters for the resignation of Chancellor Katehi. As well as eyewitness accounts.
Did you know that chancellors make almost $500,000 a year--and are calling for increased tuition on the students they are there to educate?
*quality

Sean Carroll a senior research associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology has a blog on the Discover Magazine website--Cosmic Variance--this is his take on this.
Brutality

Includes links to petitions and open letters for the resignation of Chancellor Katehi. As well as eyewitness accounts.
Did you know that chancellors make almost $500,000 a year--and are calling for increased tuition on the students they are there to educate?
*quality

>> ^srd:

There's already an open letter calling for the chancellors resignation:
https://bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/2011/11/19
/open-letter-to-chancellor-linda-p-b-katehi/


Thanks for the information, srd.

Great letter!