Dangers of Global Warming

On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 08:46:46 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Do you think the Earth actually was flat many centuries ago just
because a clear majority of the people who lived back then believed
so?

Correctness cannot be determined by a majority vote.

I disagree. Because "correctness" has multiple meanings. What is TRUE
cannot be determined by majority vote. But there are things which are
not matters of fact, and which of those we call "correct" might well
be determined by some kind of popular opinion. And in my view, that
includes moral strictures and ethical codes.

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 7:46:50 AM UTC, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 07:08:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 8:23:01 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

You are confusing facts with opinions. Ethics choices can be
desirable or undesirable, but not right or wrong.

What do you mean by desirable or undesirable? Desirable or
undesirable by any
given individual, or desirable or undesirable in general?

The latter, "desirable in general", could be taken as equivalent to
"correct".

Do you think the Earth actually was flat many centuries ago just
because a clear majority of the people who lived back then believed
so?

Correctness cannot be determined by a majority vote.


Empiricists like this guy live on a nervous platform as not one of his kind knows what was behind Newton's language no more than he was comfortable with the genuine works of astronomy.

They can convince the wider world that they possess the language of astronomy but they are enemies of all astronomers hold dear and especially the perspectives which introduced the motions of the Earth in accounting for observations of the Sun and the other planets.

https://groups.google.com/?hl=en

The empirical creed doesn't recognize why the planets temporarily fall behind in view as they insert an alternative and meaningless attribution for the observed motions -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

The empiricists terrify people with their meaningless equations yet they themselves can't appreciate the most basic astronomical innovations therefore they are not just enemies of astronomy but also human endeavor in astronomy and terrestrial science affairs.

In the genuine heart, astronomical insights are as light as a feather but the empiricists can't carry the burden of these easy to understand insights hence they pretend not to see the actual innovations using 21st century imaging.

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 3:00:38 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 08:46:46 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Do you think the Earth actually was flat many centuries ago just
because a clear majority of the people who lived back then believed
so?

Correctness cannot be determined by a majority vote.

I disagree. Because "correctness" has multiple meanings. What is TRUE
cannot be determined by majority vote.

Good, at least you are useful for something.

This is true as the planets temporarily fall behind in view as the faster Earth overtakes them -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

This is false although a majority think it is -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

Pretend not to see it but make no mistake, the days of talking up Newton and his agenda are over .

On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:57:37 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 08:42:29 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Second of all, I'm not discussing what our society actually
believes
at this moment in time, but what I think a society ought to look
like...

Which means there should be an "absolute right" because Chris L
Peterson thinks so?
Perhaps we could call this the egotheistical worldview...

What Chris L Peterson thinks is that humans define rights, and that
"absolute right" isn't an unreasonable word for us humans to use to
represent the rights we place the most value on (rather like we
might
use "privilege" to define those of lesser value). I fail to see
anything remotely egotistical in this suggestion, unless you define
"egotistical" as "having an opinion".

Having an opinion is not the problem. The problem is the belief that
your opinion should decide such a bit matter.

On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 18:17:55 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Having an opinion is not the problem. The problem is the belief that
your opinion should decide such a bit matter.

Where have I suggested that? I simply seek to convince others that my
ideas are good, in the hope that things will swing that way. Are you
suggesting that you wouldn't want to see society shift in a way that
isn't more aligned with your own worldview? That people shouldn't
voice their opinions with the intent of changing the world?

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 7:16:28 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 12:56:21 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:

The very first two words here, "We hold", clearly shows that the
authors of this text is expressing their opinion.

I hold that, as a consequence of the Sun's mass being significantly greater than
the mass of the Earth, the Solar System may be better approximated by considering
the Earth to revolve about the Sun than the reverse.

The authors of the text are expressing their common *belief*; whether it is
shared opinion, religious faith, or acceptance, mistaken or otherwise, of
perceived fact, is, in fact, left ambiguous by the construction quoted.

And, in fact, if one goes just a little *past* those first two words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident"

word number 7 shows that whether it was opinion or deluded belief about fact...
if they were wrong, they were indeed seriously deluded. Because they did not
simply believe that people had certain rights; they believed that the alleged
fact that they had such rights *was so obvious that any reasonable person would
acknowledge it*.

If one claims that something is that obvious, clearly one *is* claiming that it
is fact, and not merely opinion.

John Savard

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 5:17:59 PM UTC, Paul Schlyter wrote:

" UT = Universal time. Defined by the Earth's rotation"

http://stjarnhimlen.se/comp/time.html

How many clowns like you can't manage to put the 24 hour system and the Lat/Long system within the 365/366 day framework.

That wreck of a career you have may entertain others who also know no better but it will always be incompetence. Get used to it.

Make sure you know what you are talking about as the technical and historical details are against you -

".. on account of the procession of the rising of Sirius by one day in the course of 4 years,.. therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the new year" Canopus Decree 238 BC


These people were both timekeepers and astronomers, your cult is merely full of imposters and voodoo merchants.

On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 10:34:44 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 18:17:55 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:
Having an opinion is not the problem. The problem is the belief
that
your opinion should decide such a bit matter.


Where have I suggested that? I simply seek to convince others that
my
ideas are good, in the hope that things will swing that way. Are you
suggesting that you wouldn't want to see society shift in a way that
isn't more aligned with your own worldview? That people shouldn't
voice their opinions with the intent of changing the world?

Shouldn't the arrangement of society be formed from consensus rather
than from just ones own worldview? Shouldn't people be able not just
to speak for themselves but also to listen to others?

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 10:02:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 7:16:28 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 12:56:21 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

The very first two words here, "We hold", clearly shows that
the
authors of this text is expressing their opinion.

I hold that, as a consequence of the Sun's mass being
significantly greater than
the mass of the Earth, the Solar System may be better
approximated by considering
the Earth to revolve about the Sun than the reverse.

The authors of the text are expressing their common *belief*;
whether it is
shared opinion, religious faith, or acceptance, mistaken or
otherwise, of
perceived fact, is, in fact, left ambiguous by the construction
quoted.

And, in fact, if one goes just a little *past* those first two
words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident"

word number 7 shows that whether it was opinion or deluded belief
about fact...
if they were wrong, they were indeed seriously deluded. Because
they did not
simply believe that people had certain rights; they believed that
the alleged
fact that they had such rights *was so obvious that any reasonable
person would
acknowledge it*.

If one claims that something is that obvious, clearly one *is*
claiming that it
is fact, and not merely opinion.

Claiming something is a fact doesn't make it a fact. Presenting
supporting evidence is a much better way to establish a fact.

Belief in natural rights is like belief in god: many people are very
sure it exists, but nobody can present actual evidence for it.

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 11:13:01 PM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 10:34:44 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

Where have I suggested that? I simply seek to convince others that
my
ideas are good, in the hope that things will swing that way. Are you
suggesting that you wouldn't want to see society shift in a way that
isn't more aligned with your own worldview? That people shouldn't
voice their opinions with the intent of changing the world?

Shouldn't the arrangement of society be formed from consensus rather
than from just ones own worldview? Shouldn't people be able not just
to speak for themselves but also to listen to others?

Certainly. But that won't work if no one is able to speak for himself or
herself. Therefore, why are you objecting to Chris L. Peterson speaking? (I
presume you are not, but you are instead intending to object to something else
which I fail to understand.)

I think there's some kind of misunderstanding going on here, as the two of you
appear to be on the same side of the argument in this thread.

John Savard