The paradox of tolerance and where tolerance is taking us all
Hi newstalkers, I'm Kevin, and I'm a pagan. I look at many things differently than you. I will now without any hesitation what so ever Proselytize.
It just means I'm trying to get you, to see things more my way. I love my nation and hate to see it so divided. I've got some uncomfortable questions for the more progressive among us. Helping me to proselytize will be the great Carl Popper, so much has changed since he wrote this in 1945. I will try to use my Philosophy to examine the paradox of tolerance, and where tolerance is taking us all, as a nation. I don't like the direction this is going at all by the way. I want you to take a moment please, and stop and think about tolerance, as well as what tolerance means to you.
The liberal ideology has a number of paradoxes. One that threatens liberalism at its core is the paradox of tolerance. It is without doubt that liberalism is an ideology of tolerance. The common argument from the liberal front sounds as follows: “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it!”
Sadly this is no longer the case. The modern liberal is all about suppressing speech. From Evergreen College . I look at it, and all I see is uncontrolled lunacy. To jailing skeptics of climate change. The Climate is a dynamic system in near constant flux in the earth's billions of years of existence. We are now in what is scientificity called an interglacial period the Holocene (new in Greek). NOAA confirms this simple fact. But that is not what they mean when they say climate denial. What climate denial is, it's just a claim that man caused it. Now even if you are right (I don't think you are) But I will give it to you for argument's sake. The next step has no scientific evidence backing it up at all. And that is that giving governments trillions of dollars will change or reverse it. That's just insane. Canada has criminalized criticism of Islam . Blasphemy laws returning to the western world, oh my.!! Have you considered Christians perhaps petitioning the government for similar protections? or is that totally different? (LOL)
This type of openness towards the other can be parasitic to the polity in question. For, if the liberals are to tolerate all the views, would they not succumb, in the end, towards views which reject liberalism as such? In other words, the paradox of tolerance states that being tolerant must refute the intolerance of the other towards the tolerant self.
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them . In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal (Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies ).
http://paradoxoftheday.com/the-paradox-of-tolerance/
Please read the entire article, I just cheery picked a few quotes from a great article.
A second source is introduced now NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/opinion/womens-march-progressives-hate.html?_r=1
The leaders of the Women’s March, arguably the most prominent feminists in the country, have some chilling ideas and associations. Far from erecting the big tent so many had hoped for, the movement they lead has embraced decidedly illiberal causes and cultivated a radical tenor that seems determined to alienate all but the most woke.
I see the word used often to describe the progressives, they are "Woke". I will try to put that in context. Who is "the most woke" or progressive. Who stands out in their progressiveness, from a sea of other progressives?
Start with Ms. Sarsour, by far the most visible of the quartet of organizers. It turns out that this “homegirl in a hijab,” as one of many articles about her put it, has a history of disturbing views, as advertised by . . . Linda Sarsour.
There are comments on her Twitter feed of the anti-Zionist sort: “Nothing is creepier than Zionism,” she wrote in 2012. And, oddly, given her status as a major feminist organizer, there are more than a few that seem to make common cause with anti-feminists, like this from 2015: “ You’ll know when you’re living under Shariah law if suddenly all your loans and credit cards become interest-free. Sound nice, doesn’t it?” She has dismissed the anti-Islamist feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the most crude and cruel terms , insisting she is “not a real woman” and confessing that she wishes she could take away Ms. Ali’s vagina — this about a woman who suffered genital mutilation as a girl in Somalia.
Ms. Sarsour and her defenders have dismissed all of this as a smear campaign coordinated by the far right and motivated by Islamophobia. Plus, they’ve argued, many of these tweets were written five years ago! Ancient history.
Ms. Sarsour is "Woke" for sure, she mocked a victim of female genital mutilation and called for a Jihad against the President of the United States of America. Female genital mutilation is a subject the progressive left avoids like a vampire avoids sunlight and garlic. My article about it got one comment. Over half a million American women are in danger of that horribly misogynistic patriarchal practice and one f-ing comment from those who claim to be concerned with the rights of those who can not protect themselves. You all should be ashamed!
second chance
Like many others, CNN’s Jake Tapper noticed the outrageous tweet. “Shakur is a cop-killer fugitive in Cuba,” he tweeted , going on to mention Ms. Sarsour’s troubling past statements. “Any progressives out there condemning this? ” he asked.
In the face of this sober criticism, Ms. Sarsour cried bully : “ @jaketapper joins the ranks of the alt-right to target me online. Welcome to the party.”
Wiki defines alt-right as a white nationalist. Is Jake Trapper a white nationalist?
Can't get more "woke" than that? Not so fast there my little buckaroos. We are just getting started on those who are "woke"
What’s more distressing is that Ms. Sarsour is not the only leader of the women’s movement who harbors such alarming ideas. Largely overlooked have been the similarly outrageous statements of the march’s other organizers.
Ms. Mallory, in addition to applauding Assata Shakur as a feminist emblem, also admires Fidel Castro, who sheltered Ms. Shakur in Cuba. She put up a flurry of posts when Mr. Castro died last year. “R.I.P. Comandante! Your legacy lives on!” she wrote in one. She does not have similar respect for American police officers. “When you throw a brick in a pile of hogs, the one that hollers is the one you hit,” she posted on Nov. 20.
Ms. Perez also expressed her admiration for a Black Panther convicted of trying to kill six police officers: “Love learning from and sharing space with Baba Sekou Odinga.”
But the public figure both women regularly fawn over is Louis Farrakhan.
On May 11, Ms. Mallory posted a photo with her arm around Mr. Farrakhan, the 84-year-old Nation of Islam leader notorious for his anti-Semitic comments, on Twitter and Instagram . “Thank God this man is still alive and doing well,” she wrote. It is one of several videos and photos and quotes that Ms. Mallory has posted of Mr. Farrakhan.
Ms. Perez is also a big fan. In the fall, she posted a photo in which she holds hands with Mr. Farrakhan, writing, “There are many times when I sit with elders or inspirational individuals where I think, ‘I just wish I could package this and share this moment with others.’ ” She’s also promoted video of Mr. Farrakhan “dropping knowledge” and another in which he says he is “speaking truth to power.”
If embracing murderous communist dictators, cop killers, and delusional theocratic anti Semites is being "woke"? well F-that, I'm taking a nap you all. But first more on the good minister.
But his views, which this editorial page has called “twisted,” remain as appalling as ever.
“And don’t you forget, when it’s God who puts you in the ovens, it’s forever!” he warned Jews in a speech at a Nation of Islam gathering in Madison Square Garden in 1985. Five years later, he remained unreformed: “The Jews, a small handful, control the movement of this great nation, like a radar controls the movement of a great ship in the waters.” Or this metaphor, directed at Jews: “You have wrapped your tentacles around the U.S. government, and you are deceiving and sending this nation to hell.” He called Hitler “a very great man” on national television. Judaism, he insists, is a “gutter religion.”
In one of the several widely available YouTube videos he’s made about the Jews, he told black Americans that “the control of the Synagogue of Satan over our people must be exposed.” He adds: “These satanic ones have not only controlled hip-hop but they control, according to their own words, the very messages that are brought to the public.” He goes on to offer a truly remarkable analysis of the hip-hop industry in which “intelligent” rappers are rejected by the “satanic minds” who insist that they “want filth” and encourage “vulgarity” and “savagery.” This is the first 10 minutes of an hour.
Mr. Farrakhan is also an unapologetic racist. He insists that whites are a “race of devils” and that “white people deserve to die.”
Feminists will find little to cheer in his 1950s views of gender: “Your professional lives can’t satisfy your soul like a good, loving man.” Recently he told Jay-Z that he should make Beyoncé put on some clothes. He also opposes gay marriage.
If that wasn’t enough of a rap sheet, Mr. Farrakhan also loves Scientology and believes 9/11 was a false flag operation.
How many newstalkers progressives are saintly and "woke" in such a manner? Why are some progressives more tolerant of those people and have little if any tolerance for me? Just asking.
Tags
Who is online
50 visitors
All comments are welcome, including, but not limited to vanilla ice cream, dogs, cats, motorcycles, and the discrimination of lesbian Koala bears in the Outback.
You are confusing dncers, with liberals. Liberals still, and will always embrace free speech for even the most despicable of ideas, as that is how their nature is exposed. Having seen you write this same stuff on nv, I hold no illusions that you'll ever stop confusing dncers for liberals.
You are confusing dncers, with liberals.
You are confusing opinion with fact. Try a dictionary, please.
err I watch
A dictionary just confirms (as does your opening statement) that you have no clue why a dncer cannot be called a liberal. I.e. liberals do not invade sovereign nations see bo. Liberals do not call for the invasion of sovereign nations, see BJC. Yadda yadda. Good luck, I did not come here for this.
A dictionary just confirms
Please source a dictionary and what you claim it confirms.Thank you.
So there are no liberals left in the DNC?
"Political correctness" is the most overblown topic in contemporary America. For and against.
I've rarely seen people in the normal course of going about their daily business who care about it at all.
It is a niche internet topic and a topic for intellectual circles from both ends of the spectrum.
"Political correctness" is the most overblown topic in contemporary America. For and against.
That is one of the reasons I never mention it in this article. It also did not exist in Mr. Popper's lifetime.
indeed PC is not only a " Copout " but a Muzzle to " free speech "!
The whistle blower fired by one of the most powerful corporations one the planet in the name of tolerance is one of the biggest new stories of the week.
This topic, and how our country deals with it, will have more long term ramifications than just about any other.
The whistle blower fired by one of the most powerful corporations
Thank you for the comment. I seeded an article about that yesterday.
I've rarely seen people in the normal course of going about their daily business who care about it at all.
It is a niche internet topic and a topic for intellectual circles from both ends of the spectrum.
Accusations of PC are a great way to set up strawman arguments. The trick is to attack "what liberal PC says"... without actually justifying anything.
oh, wait... That's basically what this whole article does...
Accusations of PC
Is there invisible ink involved here? because my article does not mention political correctness!!
Can you show me where you are getting this idea from? copy/paste, please?
There are extremist in every party and they represent every ideology. Unfortunately, rather than acknowledging this, opponents will frame the extremist as a normal representation of the type of people that are a part of that political ideology. That's what creates a basis for intolerance. When I first came to this site I tried to approach each member as an individual rather than making assumptions based on who they generally supported. I quickly learned that individual thought is almost impossible on these sites. People tend to run in packs and this site isn't any different.
hey wait a minute,,, :-)
You had depends, on your Chat status right
My Fault I misread it as " Deep End " and out of concern I asked you if you could Swim, that I thought was the Human thing to Do!!1
opponents will frame the extremist as a normal representation of the type of people that are a part of that political ideology
I'm using the New York Times as a source. In what way are they in the opposition to the progressives ideology linked here?
Are there many other (or one) opinion pieces in harsh opposition to the I ideology of the progressive left within the body politic of American life in that newspaper?
At the end of the times article, it says this. Is that what you are doing?
If you are talking with me then you need to be more clear on what you are trying to say. Please speak plainly.
I stopped reading at " The modern liberal is all about suppressing speech."
Hit a little to close to home, huh?
I stopped reading at
That, I believe was also the most likely reason given for the geocentric theory of the universe to continue far too long. I blame theocrats and closed minded individuals as well.
Politics are not religion. It's good to have beliefs and assumptions crushed on occasion.
Not being able to refute them, well that is another matter entirely.
To use your analogy, I would indeed stop reading at "the Earth is the center of the universe".
You set as a postulate something that I know to be not just false, but stupid-false. If your postulate is false, any logical structure you build on it must also be false. Why should I bother?
But Sean agrees with you, so you should be pleased...
To use your analogy,
But you are not. You are reversing it. (did you think I would not notice?) funny you are Bob. I had forgotten. It has been a while.
What reading would have revealed to a proponent of a geocentric universe, is in fact, the reality of the heliocentric universe. It's like the difference between reality and delusion. That was my point.
Do you believe those things embedded in the article did not happen? or do you believe conservatives responsible? Because they are as real as heliocentrism!!! and someone is responsible who do you believe is?
You are reversing it.
Nope. Correcting it. You said "The modern liberal is all about suppressing speech." IMNAAHO, that is as false as "the Earth is the center of the universe". So I put the two parallel.
Your "suppressing speech" thingus isn't just false, it's silly. Ridiculous.
Think about that sentence. "The modern liberal is all about suppressing speech." Do you truly think there's nothing else? That's all? What happened to collectivization? Where did "stealing my money" go?
My point, in saying "I stopped reading at..." was to underscore your over-the-top language. That sentence isn't just wrong. If it were no worse than wrong, I would continue to read.
But that sentence isn't just wrong. It's stupid wrong. It's ridiculous wrong. It annonces that all that follows is going to be stupid-wrong, too
I have better things to do than to read stupid-wrong...
to read stupid-wrong...
Isn't stupid wrong easily refuted?
Will it be a while? I have yet to see any attempt at all. Just poppycock
Origin and Etymology of poppycock
Dutch dialect pappekak , literally, soft dung, from Dutch pap pap + kak dung
Isn't stupid wrong easily refuted?
Not necessarily. When stupid-wrong is posted by a smart person, there's something else going on... not just a straightforward assertion. That smart person had to know that the stupid-wrong was stupid-wrong, and posted it anyway.
I try to avoid presuming to know other people's motives, on any subject. I react only to what I actually observe. So I don't try to guess why a smart person posts something that is stupid-wrong.
OTOH, I don't put a finger on flypaper, either...
When stupid-wrong is posted by a smart person
So all I did was juxtapose (Greek and French roots) an old quote from a Carl Popper book about the dangers of tolerating the intolerant, with a recent NYT article about, who in my opinion, are some very intolerant progressives. They would all describe themselves as progressive. The time's article itself calls them the "most woke" a term used by progressives to self-describe the most progressive among themselves.
I am and was suggesting Mr. Popper was perhaps prophetic in his writing. That perhaps tolerating the intolerant has led to an intolerant outcome? I left it to the readers of the article to draw their own conclusions. I see you have drawn a conclusion? if you have read it yet? and are possibly angry?
Progressivism is an idea that I find intrusive on my personal intellectual space as well as a hindrance to the body politic within the public sphere.
From HG Wells "the Modern Utopia" from the Greek ou or no and topos or place... utopia noplace ( he is talking about a delusion)
Word invented by Sir Thomas More in 1516 as the title of his book. "Utopia" this delusion goes way back. And still, humans attempt to achieve it. Venezuela is just the latest human attempt at utopia on earth. How is that working out?
taken from chapter five.
I find highly that objectionable! As I don't believe that delusional ideologues should have dominion over the population of the world.
I don't like where this is going! As I have been described as a mad man and a drunkard before (LOL)
The self-important superiority the moral posturing, and preening is very religious like. Don't ya think?
The better sort of people are progressives? (LOL)
So I don't try to guess why a smart person posts something that is stupid-wrong
I recognize there are many systems of beliefs Bob, and that humans are well known to be predisposed to proteolyze. Some ideas that are proteolyzed are deemed divine in origin as they promise salvation in this life as well as the next. But other human ideas (progressiveness) claim the same benefits and are thus subject to a similar scrutiny. The hypocrisy, the delusions supporting the ideas, the origins or founding text defining the ideas to believers are open to criticism and critique. Are they not?
Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and Progressivism all just life guidance systems fiercely competing for acceptance in the arena of ideas. When those ideas or others, are introduced into the arena of ideas they become fair game. I can grab any idea by the throat that I so desire and violently shake it about, just to see if the idea has any substance. Progressivism is a human created idea.
If the foundations of progressiveness are so fragile and difficult to defend why not chose a better idea or life guidance system?
(ps)
I've recently been studying the argumentive philosophies of the classic Greek cynics. How am I doing? (LOL)
Would you care to explore some more of the foundational text of the progressive movement?
Taken from chapter 6 The Modern Utopia.
Plato called his perfect society Magnesia
Displaying clear signs of Islamophobia or perception?
Now Mr. Wells is expressing his own ideas
Sounds like an alt-right white supremacist, But it is not. It is the father of progressiveness displaying a racist attitude most the prevalent among the first wave of progressives.
Misogynistic faults soon appear in logic and reason
The dude had some issues!!
Just like Christians are asked to defend the old testament "the kill your neighbor for working on the Sabbath" thing I ask progressives to defend the foundational text of their system of belief.
Do you have a point? Could you please present it succinctly?
Once again, I didn’t get very far...
They would all describe themselves as progressive. The time's article itself calls them the "most woke" a term used by progressives to self-describe the most progressive among themselves.
I usually stop reading when a conservative starts defining "progressive". Straw-man on the horizon! But exceptionally, I persisted. (Say "Thank you!")
And, yes indeed:
Progressivism is an idea that I find intrusive on my personal intellectual space as well as a hindrance to the body politic within the public sphere. ...
The self-important superiority the moral posturing, and preening is very religious like. Don't ya think?
Generalities with no foundation. As if "progressive" is monolithic.
Do you know what you are talking about? Or are you just tossing out fragments of... something...?
I usually stop reading when a conservative starts defining "progressive"
Please explain why you label me a conservative? Why do you get to define me, or conservative?
What prohibits me from defining progressive?
Doble standards perhaps?
What ideas or beliefs have I expressed to deserve in your mind, a derogatory term?
You still have made no attempt at a refutation of a single word I published. You have not mentioned a single line as incorrect!
Once again, I didn’t get very far...
That really does not speak well of your Intelectual curiosity.
Look... If you have a point ro make, please try to express it concisely. I have the impression that you are jumping around, and I'm not sure it's worth the effort to follow you.
tolerance has boundaries.
What are the boundaries?
How do you define them?
"What are the boundaries?"
On what ?
.......................................................
Don't bother,
I'm not going to sit here and define MY boundaries on subjects of your choice.
IF you don't understand boundaries ask your parents in my opinion they should have taught you those long ago.
Here is my take on this. The Modern-day Liberal (mainly Millennials) has become focused on preventing themselves from hearing dissenting world views. They have become the true Modern Isolationists as shown by how they protest anyone from the Right Wing just for speaking at a school and demanding so-called safe spaces. This is also shown by how they turn on one of their own as soon as that person stops and starts thinking for their own self and stating that what they did before was wrong on some level. It doesn't matter what the subject is that they think they did wrong on or believed wrongly about; as soon as they say they were wrong and try to say why, they are pilloried by those that were allied with them. This actually does a disservice to everyone as they are refusing to listen and maybe learn that their world view is just a shell. We need dissenting views to continue to expand our minds and true tolerance not the pseudo-tolerance promoted by those on college campuses which is more of a "Do as I say, not as I do." message.
Let's take one example: Scientists are supposed to always question the results and data that they find. But, what happens to those that dissent about Global Warming/Climate Change/AGW Theory? They are constantly being accused of working for big oil or being called names for questioning the science behind Climate Change. Then, the supporters of Climate Change pull out the "Scientific Consensus" argument, which is just crap as the Scientific Consensus is just opinion not actual science. As I said elsewhere, this is one subject that is hard to get me to budge on that Climate Science is so far been nothing but junk science. The Scientific Consensus is just a bunch of opinions based off bad data as that data has until recently been below the 95th Percentile (plus that data is still the same data as before it was suddenly declared 95th Percentile), plus the single source of ground-based temperature data is constantly being modified (which INCREASES error and DECREASES reliability). These factors are ignored by the non-scientists and those scientists that back the AGW Theory, so what they are backing is extremely flawed at best and at worst a complete scam similar to Bernie Madoff's financial scam but using weather and science as the fudged numbers to make money.
"The Modern-day Liberal (mainly Millennials) has become focused on preventing themselves from hearing dissenting world views."
.................................................................................
That also describes most conservatives I know and have known.
For instance: FOX news entertainment news chat rooms poofed any posts that didn't tow the conservative line as soon as they were posted.
................................................................................
This is why I dropped all party affiliations and became a registered independent, both political parties are corrupt and do not have my best interests in mind. It has become nothing more that two opposing sides bent on each others destruction. That's not the America I can vote for.
..................................................................................
Both the media and politicians have devided US up for their own power and profit. And I dont see that changing anytime soon, too many people are still willing to vote straight party line instead of taking the time to do the research and voting for the most qualified person for each office that holds power over us.
..................................................................................
Now we have a childlike classless authoritarian megalomaniac as the most powerful human on earth....
WTF could go wrong ? I think we may soon be finding out !
tomwcraig,
Basically, you are saying that you know better than the professionals. Over 95% of climatologists consider AGW to be real. You ask, "what happens to those that dissent about Global Warming/Climate Change/AGW Theory?" But there is no such thing. All climatologists, practically, think AGW is real.
So the problem is not with Millennials. They are right to follow the experts on the subject of AGW.
The problem is with the right, which has abandoned rational thinking (data plus logic) in favor of gut-feelings. Climate-change-denial has become an article of faith, obligatory for all members of the tribe.
For the alt-right Faithful, denialism has become a badge of honor. The Faithful prove the intensity of their faith by putting it above reality.
Basically, you are saying that you know better than the professionals. Over 95% of climatologists consider AGW to be real.
On line commentators do themselves no favors when they use shoddy statistics and public relations mombo-jumbo, who-do Vudu, to sell highly complicated scientific hypotheses to the general public. Sooner rather than later people will wake up to the fact that they have been manipulated.Duped hoodwinked, bamboozled, made a fool of. The reaction could very easily be quite harsh.
The claims usually said as 97% of all climate scientist agrees man caused emissions to the atmosphere cause or greatly contribute to global warming. But it does vary. We need to determine what is tangible, from what is illusionary, to closely examine the overall merits of the claim made.
Does a list of all of the worlds climate scientists exist? Can it be produced on demand?
A tangible object can be produced, an illusionary object can not. Can such a list be produced?
What percentage of those on the list partook in this claimed survey to gain a consensus?
If such a list can be produced, how were the opinions of the climate scientists obtained? vote? Poll? it is never explained. Why is that?
If the facts of such a claim are in fact tangible, and not illusionary, shouldn't it be made readily available to the public at large?
Humans in our entire history have had great difficulty separating the tangible from the illusionary. It appears that it is still happening today.
Kpr37,
So... It doesn't matter how unanimously scientists agree that AGW is real, you know better.
Impressive.
. It doesn't matter how unanimously scientists agree that AGW is real
See definition of the word.
If you want to try the appeal to authority fallacy, I'm down with that too.
Meet Professor Richard Lindzen. This is a tangible list of the scientific papers, article, and books published while he was a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. There are 243 of them. Are you familiar with any?
Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences
Do you remember Lysenkoism? It turned out horribly
--Charles A. Leone, " Lysenko versus Mendel ," Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science , 1952
Do you remember Lysenkoism?
No. I'm not THAT old! I have read about it though. It was a state-dictated dogma. ... Which is not at all the case of AGW.
I AM old enough to remember four decades back, when "global warming" was the new idea, distinctly minority in the scientific community. I have watched the scientific community go from skepticism to massive accord.
You have the right, of course, to consider yourself cleverer than 97% of climate scientists... but please don't expect me to waste any more time on you.
As a pagan, I know as a fact that James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis were the high priest and priestess of the modern Gaia theory, that is only a poor man's reworking of Plato's Timaeus for the twenty-first century. I shit you not. The truth is often far stranger than fiction, Religious plagiarizing is nothing new. The flock or believers have been well and truly fleeced. Once more!
So many were consumed with the dangers of Christianity in America, they never saw us pagans coming. Secularism my ass. It says separation between "church" and state. It says nothing about sacrificing the future of America at the altar of the Goddess Gaia. She is the earth, she is the nation, she is the firmament that we stand upon. (LOL)
Bob,
I have the scientific training to back up my point of view. You are saying the YOUNGEST of the sciences knows more about precision, accuracy, and error than CHEMISTS. Yes, I was a Chemistry major and had 95th Percentile drilled in my head from my Sophomore year in high school until I left the college I went to.
Tom,
No. "I" don't pretend to be competent on the topic. Serious science requires a doctorate or two and then a couple decades of experience. I don't pretend to know more than I actually do.
I do follow the news pretty closely, though. I remember that "statistical methods" were a hot topic when all those private emails were made public a few years ago. And that no significant errors were found by either of the two organizations that reviewed the material.
No decent scientist speaks of "certainty". There is always a "possibility" of error. But there is a remarkably high degree of confidence in the scientific community that AGW is real.
So you may disbelieve if you so desire... but then you must abandon any pretense of scientific thinking, and just admit that you prefer to listen to your gut than to your brain.
Do you know what 95th Percentile is? Have you never taken a California Achievement Test or the ASVAB? In regards to those tests, the 95th Percentile means that you score better than 95 Percent of the others who've taken those tests. It is very similar in the Scientific world. However, it means that there is only a 5% chance or less that your data and results are wrong and will not exponentially compound into being wildly incorrect. Until about 2 years ago, the actual percentile for Climate Change data and results was 90th Percentile. 10% chance of being wildly incorrect is disastrous in regards to something that could be life or death. And, the fact that they still include that data as the basis for the Theory but has changed it to 95th Percentile without any actual recreation of the data and results should really put up a red flag as to whether they are really performing science or creating political propaganda.
Do you know what 95th Percentile is?
That's kinda insulting... particularly since you then proceed to demonstrate that you do not, really:
... it means that there is only a 5% chance or less that your data and results are wrong and will not exponentially compound into being wildly incorrect
" and will not exponentially compound into being wildly incorrect" is not part of the definition. And therefore, "10% chance of being wildly incorrect" is improper.
And, the fact that they still include that data as the basis for the Theory but has changed it to 95th Percentile without any actual recreation of the data and results...
... is simply not true. Data is added constantly.
You don't have to accept the massive consensus among scientists as "reality". There is a small possibility that they are wrong.
You don't have to accept General Relativity, or Quantum Theory, or Evolution, or Germ Theory, or Heliocentrism.
If you think you know better than science.......
Liberals are a class all their own. I just read where that football player whose name begins with a K has fans now knelling. I swear, this is the end.....there is no more.
KPR:
very good article, what i get from it is to explore your beliefs and it's basis, foundations and question if it is based on reality, faith or the old "i need to go along to be accepted" philosophy.
progressives want to "believe" they are tolerant but the evidence quite clearly disputes that...when anyone questions that tolerance they are attacked or like some said "i simply quit reading" to avoid the question altogether.
I'm an independent moderate, You say," when anyone questions that tolerance they are attacked"
I say what many conservatives dont seem to understand is tolerance has boundaries.
Tolerating the tolerable is one thing, being asked or forced to tolerate the intolerable is still not tolerated.
321steve:
basically what is intolerable to progressives and liberals nowdays is anything that they do not agree with, just like what the articles says...who are YOU to decide what is tolerable and set BOUNDARIES for the rest of us...if you can't tolerate it then it is more your problem ..
"what is intolerable to progressives and liberals nowdays is anything that they do not agree with"
..........................................
So, Deal with it, we have with some cons forever !
From a hip young progressive named Linda. A “homegirl in a hijab”. As the Times called her.
Oh sweet, I how do get in on that? How progressive sounding? right?
Do you tolerate this, cause sharia is a package.
You will know you are living under sharia when the vans come to your house, for the clitoris removal. After taking power the Muslim Brotherhood sent roving medical convoys cutting the clitoris off women and young girls. Sharia, it's not just a law, it is a human rights violation.
what i get from it is to explore your beliefs and it's basis, foundations and question if it is based on reality, faith or the old "i need to go along to be accepted" philosophy.
Yes, that is about it. Thank you for the comment.
I thought when I wrote this, it was clear.
I want you to take a moment please, and stop and think about tolerance, as well as what tolerance means to you.
And Karl Popper's, The Open Society and its enemies quotes just seemed to fit well with the Times article. I was hoping it painted a vivid picture of the predictions or warnings in the book in the here and now.
WELL WHAT IS TOLERABLE just like pain is subjective to the individual, what i find objectionable is how some seem to think they can and have the right to define and set limits for others..to many on the left that intolerable limit is a low bar indeed and it is "whatever speech or idea i don't like" therefor NO ONE should have the right to express it.
while progressives think that to give linda sarsour a stage to spew hate, madonna a "blow up the wh " remark and a failing tv personality to hold up an image of trump's severed head, and another to call our president a "cock holster" is cute, cool and free speech, but they think the word "islamic terrorist" is off limits and intolerable from others.
for progressives, any progressive to preach to others about what is INTOLERABLE is the height of hypocrisy and really quite hilarious to hear them on here and elsewhere.