Expert prognosis for the planet

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

It's semantics at this point, but I agree with Dadhawk's usage of the word "faith" in science.

Maybe these article will better explain to you why Dadhawk and your use of faith isn’t the same type of faith, and using it to relate science and religion typically leaves a sour taste in anyone’s mouth who is familiar with tactics used by religious people and politicians to minimize science. Drawing such comparisons is one of the reasons why science isn’t trusted like how people are weary of religions they aren’t affiliated with. It is one of the reasons people are so science illiterate. It is one of the reasons why scientific findings are met with skepticism and why we have flat earthers, vaccine deniers, global warming deniers and so on. When someone says science is a faith-based type of ideology/religion, no different than theological religions, no only is this untrue, but it is done with malice intent.

I don’t think you two are using it with malice intent. I believe you may be mirroring what you have heard. Maybe you don’t understand the difference well enough or understand to what extent such correlations are made maliciously by politicians and heads of religions to bolster their position and to try to minimize the strength of the scientific process at determining truth. Some religions have conceded the loss of understanding the natural world and are fine saying science provides naturalistic explanations and religions provide moralistic explanations, but in the face of philosophers/scientists like Sam Harris saying science can provide morals too, religions have responded more and more with trying to rebrand science as a quasi religion, so people will dismiss science like they dismiss other sects and religions. “Science requires just as much or more faith than religion” is a common saying to minimize what science is and does.

You can continue to draw the comparison, but for those of us who know, it is either insulting, cringe or makes me question your motives. It is a free country though.

https://slate.com/technology/2013/11...of-nature.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...-faith/417357/

[cjd]

I have faith that gravity isn't real. Also that god will save me.



Same kind of faith. Yup. One science, one not...

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Maybe these article will better explain to you why Dadhawk and your use of faith isn’t the same type of faith, and using it to relate science and religion typically leaves a sour taste in anyone’s mouth who is familiar with tactics used by religious people and politicians to minimize science. Drawing such comparisons is one of the reasons why science isn’t trusted like how people are weary of religions they aren’t affiliated with. It is one of the reasons people are so science illiterate. It is one of the reasons why scientific findings are met with skepticism and why we have flat earthers, vaccine deniers, global warming deniers and so on. When someone says science is a faith-based type of ideology/religion, no different than theological religions, no only is this untrue, but it is done with malice intent.

I don’t think you two are using it with malice intent. I believe you may be mirroring what you have heard. Maybe you don’t understand the difference well enough or understand to what extent such correlations are made maliciously by politicians and heads of religions to bolster their position and to try to minimize the strength of the scientific process at determining truth. Some religions have conceded the loss of understanding the natural world and are fine saying science provides naturalistic explanations and religions provide moralistic explanations, but in the face of philosophers/scientists like Sam Harris saying science can provide morals too, religions have responded more and more with trying to rebrand science as a quasi religion, so people will dismiss science like they dismiss other sects and religions. “Science requires just as much or more faith than religion” is a common saying to minimize what science is and does.

You can continue to draw the comparison, but for those of us who know, it is either insulting, cringe or makes me question your motives. It is a free country though.

https://slate.com/technology/2013/11...of-nature.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...-faith/417357/

That is not at all what I am saying. I am saying I have faith in our current scientific theories to be able to predict properties of the universe and further the technology of humanity even though we know they are not complete. Cringe maybe, insulting to you , and I am not applying this use to any motive. If I misuse something to apply it to an argument, call it out. I can't speak for Dadhawk on this, I may have misinterpreted his opinion. This is just how I view it.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

This is just how I view it.

He's not programmed for it.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

That is not at all what I am saying. I am saying I have faith in our current scientific theories to be able to predict properties of the universe and further the technology of humanity even though we know they are not complete. Cringe maybe, insulting to you , and I am not applying this use to any motive. If I misuse something to apply it to an argument, call it out. I can't speak for Dadhawk on this, I may have misinterpreted his opinion. This is just how I view it.

I suppose you can use the word faith in that context, but that is not the context Dadhawk was using when you said you agree with his use of the word faith. He was saying scientists have faith and beliefs in a similar way as people who are holding religious faith and beliefs. If your use of the word faith is a synonym for "highly likely to" or "high confidence for" like you did above like saying, "I have faith that scientists will create technology to solve global warming", you can say that, but that is not what Dadhawk was saying, from what I got from it. Dadhawk was drawing a parallel to religion or to religious thinking and to science or to scientific thinking similar to both of those articles I posted. If I am way off base then he can correct me.

The problem with people like Unplugem is that their concept of science is similar to what those articles mention. To him, it is the "cult of science". Believing what scientists say is no different than believing a person behind the pulpit, and while there is some truth to the trust involved in accepting that body/authority, the difference is vast. Anyone can independently verify the validity/veracity of what a scientist said, but no one can go back in time and be there for a religious event or verify the validity of a god/gods. For Unplugem, there is distrust in science because it is a religion or a different faith than his own, no different than his distrust in the Muslim faith if he is a Christian. To him, NASA is the head of the religion trying to peddle their faith and beliefs that he believes are lies meant to control him and take him away from his faith/truth. Because science could jeopardize his faith with "facts" and "theories", it must be satan led by Free Masons.

To say science is dependent on faith like how religions and religious people require faith, that type of faith is not the same. It isn't even close, which is why I said someone could use a vague definition of faith, but not the definition Dadhawk was using, which is closer to Unplugem, even if it wasn't to Unplugem's extremes.

[Spuds]

Irace, have you considered the irony of this discussion? Someone who is convinced that all vehicles can be made electric because some battery breakthrough is right around the corner, hydrogen/biofuel is the enemy, and anyone who says otherwise is a heretic is proclaiming that there's no faith involved in science and that religion causes people to be blind to reality?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Irace, have you considered the irony of this discussion? Someone who is convinced that all vehicles can be made electric because some battery breakthrough is right around the corner, hydrogen/biofuel is the enemy, and anyone who says otherwise is a heretic is proclaiming that there's no faith involved in science and that religion causes people to be blind to reality?

Not quite. You may have selective memory about my posts.

All vehicles could be made electric with current battery technology. It may not be as convenient, or it may require battery swapping, it would require building the infrastructure for charging and developing the grid, it may not be cheap now for all class of vehicles, but EVs have already reached price parody with ICEs. Wright's Laws states that the price will drop by 10-20% (15% average for the automotive industry historically) with a doubling of production, and we have a lot of doubling to reach production levels of current ICEs, so yes, EVs will be even cheaper based on economies of scale. This isn't based on faith. It is based on the preponderance of evidence and high degree of probabilities. Anything can happen, which I have always said is possible, but this is the most likely trajectory given all the evidence and reason. Most speculation to the contrary isn't backed by anything more than blind speculation. If you have something sound to share, I'm all ears.

Hydrogen will forever have storage issues, it requires several factor of a larger investments in building the grid, and its applications would be limited to air travel, ships, etc because of those things, so I think it will have a place in the future, but it is a dead end at this time for mass production. I think it will be an option for rural areas and for those that tow a lot, but the better application is plug in hybrids with biofuel for the small percentage of the population where EVs don't make sense. If said this before multiple times that late adopters will be holdouts who would likely use hydrogen or biofuel plug in hybrids where the batteries are big enough to run the car 99% of the time. I think Engineering Explained and other videos on the subject of hydrogen ICEs, HBEVs, and so on cover this subject well.

Same with biofuels. We don't have the land to mono crop significant corn for E85. It is a poor use of space, impacts the environment and less green/CO2 friendly. The cost for carbon capturing to make gas is inherently more expensive when using electricity from renewables to extract CO2 to make fuels when that energy can be used to power cars. This inefficiency means it is only practical for airplanes and ships that might require fuels because batteries aren't energy dense enough. It would be stupid for the masses, and at $20/gal, prohibitive for the masses.

The fact is oil is finite, even if someone wants to deny global warming, so we will need to move to renewables. There isn't much to argue there.

There is no faith involved in science, as it is defined, discussed and used in religion. Completely different. People have trust in science, but their trust is not faith because they could at any time observe nature and measure the same things scientists measure. This happens all the time from flat earthers running experiments or conservative research groups coming to the same conclusions as scientists:

Prominent climate change denier now admits he was wrong

Richard Muller, who directed a Koch-funded climate change project, has undergone a 'total turnaround' on his stance on global warming, which he now admits is caused by human activity.

https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/20...s-he-was-wrong

Religion can definitively cause people to be blind to reality. It can shape their views on a number of issues like whether they can have relationships with gay people, or whether they need to disown their children for being apostates, and so on. If they are fundamentalists and their holy book says the world is 6k-10k years old then they will blatantly ignore any evidence which might jeopardize their faith when their faith is tied to their salvation. I don't know if you are religious or know of anyone who is religious or have talked to anyone about evolution, Big Bang, or anything that conflicts with their religion, but I have, a lot, and the subject of their beliefs, their faith, or anything related is not up for debate. Ask people why they believe what they believe, why aren't they in a different sect or religion, have they studied other religions, etc and their butthole puckers up faster than a turtle into its shell. "No one comes between me and my god" is a common saying.

Anything I have said or claimed is transparent and up for debate, so yeah, I think it is night and day different--no irony.

[Dadhawk]

I've said my piece in this, so will leave it as it is. My conviction in my own personal philosophy stands, with the understanding it may not match up to anyone else's.

Right now, I'm on a white sand beach on the shores of the Alabama coast, enjoying the calm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, with a gentle breeze and the sound of the surf in my ears.

This morning I took a flight over the beach as part of my biannual flight review (I always do it in whatever location we are at on our Fall vacation). There were dolphin playing and could even see some turtles at one point.

I don't know if it is some divine plan or chaos that created it all, I just know it is fabulous.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Not quite. You may have selective memory about my posts.

Perhaps. It just feels like you have formed a vision of the future based on what you have read because the trends and data makes sense to you. So it makes sense logically that you expect those trends to continue. You cannot actually predict the future with certainty, yet you are so sure of certain aspects because of past data and understanding that you have gained. To me that indicates that you have faith that the trends will continue in part because the universe works according to understandable laws, and through understanding those laws one can reach enlightenment. You have faith that the people actually driving that future know what they are doing, and are doing the right thing, despite not actually knowing them. Im just guessing, considering I am similar, it may be that is what motivates you to do all the research, to profess the new findings and exciting news, and to contest assertions contrary to the universal laws, such as miracles or supernatural happenings. Similarly it may motivate scientific professionals to further their understanding of the universal laws because they believe it is a worthwhile pursuit.

Here is something to consider. Faith and trust are two different concepts but are linked in that someone who you believe to be aligned with your faith is seen as more trustworthy. Would you say that you more heavily scrutinize the motives or judgement of someone who does not share your beliefs than someone who does?

Something else to consider, the smartest person I've ever met, who graduated at the top of our class with an engineering degree and had offers from all of the big aerospace firms, decided to become a Franciscan monk. I can assure you he knows the mechanics of the universe as well as anyone else and I staked my own degree on his judgement more than once. Just an anecdote that might contrast your perception of religious people.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Perhaps. It just feels like you have formed a vision of the future based on what you have read because the trends and data makes sense to you. So it makes sense logically that you expect those trends to continue. You cannot actually predict the future with certainty, yet you are so sure of certain aspects because of past data and understanding that you have gained. To me that indicates that you have faith that the trends will continue in part because the universe works according to understandable laws, and through understanding those laws one can reach enlightenment. You have faith that the people actually driving that future know what they are doing, and are doing the right thing, despite not actually knowing them. Im just guessing, considering I am similar, it may be that is what motivates you to do all the research, to profess the new findings and exciting news, and to contest assertions contrary to the universal laws, such as miracles or supernatural happenings. Similarly it may motivate scientific professionals to further their understanding of the universal laws because they believe it is a worthwhile pursuit.

Here is something to consider. Faith and trust are two different concepts but are linked in that someone who you believe to be aligned with your faith is seen as more trustworthy. Would you say that you more heavily scrutinize the motives or judgement of someone who does not share your beliefs than someone who does?

Something else to consider, the smartest person I've ever met, who graduated at the top of our class with an engineering degree and had offers from all of the big aerospace firms, decided to become a Franciscan monk. I can assure you he knows the mechanics of the universe as well as anyone else and I staked my own degree on his judgement more than once. Just an anecdote that might contrast your perception of religious people.

There are a few premises I accept about the future of cars, irregardless of transitioning for global warming reasons, but that is definitely part of it. These things aren't based on faith. What you call faith, I would say it is based on the probability or reality of the situation. I don't need to have faith that if I keep eating food in my fridge without replacing it that it will be empty:

--Fossil fuels have a finite number of known reserves.
--Our rate of finding new reserves has drastically dropped despite improvements in our science of knowing where to look and having the ability to find reserves. Unless there is an ocean of oil under Antartica, the odds seem near zero that the world will find more oil. It is at a trickle at this point.
--Unconventional (fracking/shale) reserves can last the US several hundred more years, but this is still nothing, and if you research the process of extraction compared to conventional reserves, even if slave robots were doing the work, it would never be as cheap as conventional reserves. Most people can't afford a dramatic increase in petroleum products.
--Hydrogen requires electricity from renewables to make hydrogen to be turned back into electricity in a car, which is an inherently less efficient process. It requires more grid storage to do the same job. It requires far more infrastructure compared to EVs in terms of stations, retrofitting, transport, costs, etc. It has storage issues that can't be overcome with liquid hydrogen (physics).

Considering above, I believe governments are making the right investments to stimulate the market in the right direction. I believe the market is moving well. I'm sure there will be some mistakes and lessons learned in hindsight, but overall, I think the world is making tremendous strides that will pay off in economies of scale to lower prices of EVs (they should be cheaper and last longer). It is an exciting time, full of competition and innovation.

I'm a skeptic, so I'm judgmental and critical of everything, including myself. I regularly question my own ideas all the time, and I look forward for others to question what I say. Make me think! Make me argue! I look forward to being wrong because I would rather be proved wrong than to continue to think I am write when I am not. I don't appeal to authority from any source, which includes atheists, liberals, or progressives. There are some points Jordon Peterson, Andrew Tate or Ben Shapiro might say that I agree with, even if many more things I don't agree with. I'm more like Joe Rogan, someone who voted for Bernie, who thinks the war on drugs is stupid, who supports gay marriage, but who thinks many gun control laws are stupid. For these reasons, it isn't who is saying them, but what they are saying. Fortunately, I tend to be educated and well read, and I like to research, so I don't need to accept anything someone says, needing to appeal to their "authority/expertise" when I can recognize BS or do my own research.

I don't know what is the point of your anecdote. Plenty of smart people and high IQ people in applied sciences aren't very versed in natural sciences or in philosophy such as engineers and medical doctors. Many of these people fall into the same poor thinking patterns as people with less intelligence. For instance, ask them why they go to the church they go to, and you will get, "Because I was raised there," not "Because I researched and experienced all religions and concluded this one was right". Ask them if they would be Muslim instead of Christian if they were born in the Middle East, most will deny this or shrug it off. Maybe your friend was already religious and thought his knowledge gained in school was pulling him away from his faith, so he took the extreme route. I don't know. This is why these anecdotes are failures at making any points.

[ZDan]

"Faith" in fairy-tales is stupid faith. "GOD" made her pregnant, for realz!" Dumb.

Faith in logical reasoning, based on evidence, resulting in positive predictable results is not anything like the same kind of faith. Not at *all*...

[blsfrs]

Perhaps, in this discussion, confidence (the state of feeling certain about the truth of something) is a better word than faith.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I'm more like Joe Rogan,

JEEEZUS!

That guy may be "right" occasionally, but he is a *major* regurgitator of wackass b.s. conspiracy nonsense. Feckin hell, man...

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by ZDan

JEEEZUS!

That guy may be "right" occasionally, but he is a *major* regurgitator of wackass b.s. conspiracy nonsense. Feckin hell, man...

Yeah, the guy knows how to capture an audience, placating or provoking his guests. He knows if he has a conspiracy theorist on who believes in ancient aliens or something that he will poke the bear to get them to say the most ostentatious things because it is good for ratings, and because he knows who is watching those episodes. This is more obvious when guests come back on who were "shredded in the comments" with facts, and who tone down their conviction and try to use more open language to say things are possible vs saying "this is overwhelming evidence for aliens or advanced ancient civilizations". He would egg them on with, "What is the most wild theory for these findings?"

He is a hunter, eats elk, etc. I don't own a gun, eat a plant-based diet. Seemingly, we couldn't be more different on a number of issues, but he is also a progressive on a number of issues, and he is socially liberal. My point isn't that we share a way of arriving to conclusions, just that we can't be put into a box on any extreme. Most people are in the middle or might be extreme on some issues, but moderate on others. He is just a good example of someone with an eclectic mix of ideas. Most people know of only a few clips that reach headlines, but if you have followed his comedy and show since Fear Factor, you get a deeper sense of what Joe is about. His thinking has been admittedly flawed in the past on issues like he was a moon landing conspiracy theorist until he got out of that, and he is a little wacky or naive on other things, if you take them at face value from what he said in his podcasts, but the point is he isn't a right wing extremist like the media would have you believe because he was anti vaccine mandates or because he went from pro-Bernie to pro-DeSantis.

For instance, the guy refuses to have Trump on, he went off on Candice Owens when she said she did a single night deep dive on climate change and thinks it is BS, he was ruthless against Matt Walsh on gay marriage and trans issues, embarrassing him pretty bad, he openly says he supports free college, and I could go on, yet the media paints him out to be right wing extremist inline with personalities on Breitbart, Newsmax, Epoch Times, Daily Wire, etc.