good idea

OK, Muller then.

One of the terms that atheists often apply to themselves is the term "skeptic".

Skepticism is defined as the disposition not to accept claims without proof – to be skeptical that a claim is true unless and until one has been provided reason to believe it. The skeptic, when presented with a new proposition, adopts a default value of "false" and only switches the value of "true" to that proposition when proof has been provided.

Furthermore, skepticism is supposed to be a virtue. It is a quality that a good person would have.

Using the terms of desire utilitarianism, a disposition to give a value of "false" to any new proposition is claimed to be a disposition that people generally have reason to promote. It says that people generally have reason to inhibit (through condemnation) those who accept claims too easily.

Gullibility, in other words, is a vice.

All of this can well be true. However, there is a form of skepticism (or a degree of skepticism) that is contrary to these claims.

This is a paralytic form of skepticism that prevents a person from acting because the person cannot know what the results of his actions will be. This form of skepticism says that one ought not to act unless one is certain what the consequences of that action would be. If he does not know, then he must wait for further evidence before he commits himself to that action.

This attitude is paralytic when faced with the fact that we simply cannot always know the consequences of our actions. We must act on the basis of best available evidence, even though the possibility of error remains.

Imagine the military commander on the battlefield who adopts the attitude, "I will not give any order to my troops until I have certain knowledge of what the enemy is doing." Such an attitude would guarantee defeat.

In practice, this form of skepticism is typically used as a rhetorical device by somebody who wants to stop others from taking action. Exxon-Mobile and the other global warming profiteers, Phillip Morris and the cancer profiteers, and any number of 'skeptics' of government policy argue that, "All of the information is not yet in on climate change, or the health effects of tobacco, or the effectiveness of a given policy; therefore, no action is justified." In many of these cases, the person presenting such an argument is in a position to profit from inaction, and that provides the motivation to persuade people to adopt this type of skepticism.

The fact of the matter is, we sometimes (actually, if we are honest, we almost always) have to act on limited information and try to do the best that we can. We have to admit that we do not have enough information to determine with absolute certainty the consequences of our action, but we must act.

Such is the case with the military leader on the battlefield, who has to give his orders to his troops without being fully informed of what the enemy is doing.

It is simply not a fair criticism of others that they are acting on incomplete information. It is not a fair demand to put on others that they are obligated to do nothing and wait for additional information. People may, legitimately and morally, act on incomplete information.

The form of skepticism that requires perfect information before one switches their attitude to, "I may do this" is no virtue. It is, instead, a rhetorical device often employed to manipulate others into acting in ways harmful to their interests, but ways that profit the demagogue or the interests that have employed him.

This form of skeptic needs to be met with the claim that, "We have information enough on which to make a decision. Unless you can come up with positive reason to believe that we should not commit the act, then it is perfectly reasonable - even obligatory - for us to go with what we have."

http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/200 ... icism.html

Kafei wrote:

alonzo fyfe wrote:One of the terms that atheists often apply to themselves is the term "skeptic".

[ blah blah bleeble] edited out

http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/200 ... icism.html

Kafei, do you have any ideas of your own, or are the linked words your own? If not, do you have anything at all to say about somebody else's words, or do you just like dumping texts on people, waiting for their responses, and them misrepresenting both the words you dump and the responses you get?

Information is necessarily incomplete, so incompleteness is a strawman. If you're (directly or indirectly) accusing others of paralysis-by-skepticism, what action are you advocating, and based on what information, complete or otherwise? Just say what you have to say, man. Are you saying we should stop shitting and pissing, which is overloading the sewage system (in the figurative sense, of course)? And who the fuck is Alonzo Fyfe, and why should I give a flying fuck? He isn't Jordan Peterson, that's for damn sure. This might be what you're on about, from the screed you linked:

Kafei wrote:

alonzo fyfe wrote:Using the terms of desire utilitarianism, a disposition to give a value of "false" to any new proposition is claimed to be a disposition that people generally have reason to promote. It says that people generally have reason to inhibit (through condemnation) those who accept claims too easily.

Maybe alonzo fyfe invented 'desire utilitarianism' and maybe somebody else did. Regardless, it's an invention, and we can apply skepticism toward the utility of any new invention until its utility is demonstrated, or we can just dismiss your continued attempts to undermine skepticism of your pet ideas.

CO2 emissions from aviation fuel are 3.15 grams per gram of fuel, which gives CO2 emissions from a Boeing 737-400 of 115 g per passenger km. The distance between Ontario and Brisbane is 14,782 kilometres. This means a return trip for two adds 6.8 tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. Given that this is only a fraction of Macdoc and his partner's carbon footprint I have a problem accepting that his $144 indulgence offsets it.

Ummm they don't fly 737s to Brisbane. I fly 787s with the same fuel efficiency per person as a Prius with four passengers aboard.

To sum up, Modern aircraft are remarkably fuel efficient and deliver lower fuel consumption per passenger than passenger cars.

http://gcaircharter.com/2016/10/12/fuel ... -aircraft/

I fly twice a year....about 28,000 km.....so that's equivalent of me driving a Prius for 7,000 km annually.

Total Car Footprint = 0.76 metric tons of CO2

A typical cost for rigorously certified offsets from reputable vendors is around $9–$15 USD per ton of CO​2​e (“CO​2​ -equivalent,” the standard unit of measure for greenhouse gases)

https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

Passenger jets are in fact significantly more efficient than automobiles, if you measure on a passenger-mile basis.

And, if you’re worried about your personal carbon footprint, getting on a plane from New York to LA may actually put less carbon into the air than driving to work tomorrow.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/11 ... sins-worst

And I don't drive to work. My business is in my house.....and it's the same for one of my staff.

Our electric power is 99% carbon neutral with the occasional hot day fill from gas turbines,. We burn no coal.
I do have gas heat...with a 95% efficient furnace but that's still likely 6 -8 tons of carbon for heating but the computers add so much heat that it's likely much lower.

Macdoc wrote:Ummm they don't fly 737s to Brisbane. I fly 787s

The most economical 737 uses 2.53 L/100 km per seat.
The most economical 787 uses 2.26 L/100 km per seat.

Between you and your partner you still contribute 6.2 tons of CO2 per round trip to the atmosphere.

A 1.8litre hybrid Prius is claimed to emit 78 grams of CO2/km. You'd have to drive it for almost 79,500 kilometres for it to blow 6.2 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Umm my partner doesn't fly with me, she lives in Australia and your math sucks.

632 litres of fuel for 28,000 km

1.5 tons of CO.2 using your figures $20 worth of offset..

about 21k km at 3 l per 100 km

Not sure where you get your source from since you don't list it.
Long haul flights are by nature more fuel efficient.

and the Dreamliner is set for bio-fuel use

Qantas uses mustard seeds in first ever biofuel flight between ...
https://www.theguardian.com/.../qantas- ... flight-b...
Jan 30, 2018 - A Qantas 787-9 Dreamliner made the journey from Los Angeles to ... Compared pound for pound with jet fuel, carinata biofuel reduces ...

Aircraft emissions are simply not a problem in the larger scheme of things and are easily off set. The engines are very efficient.

Coal use in Australia is disgusting and totally unneeded....we have a bunch of dinosaurs in charge.

Local commuting in high density urban areas are resolvable with EVs and Hybrids ...but any household can budget for offsets.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Kafei wrote:

alonzo fyfe wrote:One of the terms that atheists often apply to themselves is the term "skeptic".

[ blah blah bleeble] edited out

http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/200 ... icism.html

Kafei, do you have any ideas of your own, or are the linked words your own? If not, do you have anything at all to say about somebody else's words, or do you just like dumping texts on people, waiting for their responses, and them misrepresenting both the words you dump and the responses you get?

Of course I have my own ideas. I thought that blog entry was quite pertinent to the OP, that's why I posted it. I wasn't waiting for responses nor have I misrepresented anything I've referenced.

Cito di Pense wrote:Information is necessarily incomplete, so incompleteness is a strawman. If you're (directly or indirectly) accusing others of paralysis-by-skepticism, what action are you advocating, and based on what information, complete or otherwise? Just say what you have to say, man. Are you saying we should stop shitting and pissing, which is overloading the sewage system (in the figurative sense, of course)? And who the fuck is Alonzo Fyfe, and why should I give a flying fuck? He isn't Jordan Peterson, that's for damn sure. This might be what you're on about, from the screed you linked:

Kafei wrote:

alonzo fyfe wrote:Using the terms of desire utilitarianism, a disposition to give a value of "false" to any new proposition is claimed to be a disposition that people generally have reason to promote. It says that people generally have reason to inhibit (through condemnation) those who accept claims too easily.

Maybe alonzo fyfe invented 'desire utilitarianism' and maybe somebody else did. Regardless, it's an invention, and we can apply skepticism toward the utility of any new invention until its utility is demonstrated, or we can just dismiss your continued attempts to undermine skepticism of your pet ideas.

He isn't Jordan Peterson, but he's made a very similar point to what Jordan Peterson talks about as seen in the clip below.

The protagonist in the novel wrestled with his conscience after committing the murder. Ideas of right and wrong are often successfully instilled by authority figures (ie. parents) as well as rational thought. No dog needed. Also, just because there may be some serious problems with atheism does not influence its veracity. Have a nice day.

The only thing wrong with atheism is that some people need to think it's a thing.

Kafei wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:He isn't Jordan Peterson, but he's made a very similar point to what Jordan Peterson talks about as seen in the clip below.

Peterson is a bit of an idiot, isn't he? "I don't know and I don't understand, therefore God"? WTF.

Kafei wrote:One of the terms that atheists often apply to themselves is the term "skeptic".

Skepticism is defined as the disposition not to accept claims without proof – to be skeptical that a claim is true unless and until one has been provided reason to believe it. The skeptic, when presented with a new proposition, adopts a default value of "false" and only switches the value of "true" to that proposition when proof has been provided.

False the default position is: 'I don't know' or it has not been demonstrated.
To believe something is false requires evidence or reasons to support that X is not the case.

Kafei wrote:Furthermore, skepticism is supposed to be a virtue. It is a quality that a good person would have.

It's rational. Which imo, is better than irrational.

Kafei wrote:
Using the terms of desire utilitarianism,

The fuck's that got to do with anything?

Kafei wrote:
Gullibility, in other words, is a vice.

It is indeed irrational to uncritically accept claims, especially extraordinary claims, propaganda and similar unreliable claims.

Kafei wrote:All of this can well be true. However, there is a form of skepticism (or a degree of skepticism) that is contrary to these claims.

This is a paralytic form of skepticism that prevents a person from acting because the person cannot know what the results of his actions will be.

That's not skepticism.

Kafei wrote:This form of skepticism

It isn't.

Since the rest of your rambling quote rests on this misconception of skepticism, it can be dismissed on that basis.

I think genuine scientific scepticism is a case of saying "I don't know" rather than "everyone else doesn't know" - not even when they are taking the effort to understand and review. If they don't know how can they say that someone else doesn't? First and foremost scientific scepticism seems to be an error checking technique used by working scientists to avoid embarrassing themselves.

Faux sceptics seem to insist that everyone else is wrong is the default, until and unless they are personally convinced. It becomes a way of rejecting anything they can't, don't or refuse not to understand - which looks more fallacious to me than trusting authoritative experts.

New Scientist - this week

Problems in social science are being used to discredit climate science

A conference in California next week says it aims to make scientific studies more reliable, but critics fear the event is a new tactic used by those who question the reality of climate change.
The event, called Fixing Science, is being run by the National Association of Scholars (NAS), a non-profit organisation based in New York.
The conference’s programme focuses on the reproducibility crisis – the claim that science has an increasing problem with poorly performed or even fraudulent studies – with a portion dedicated to how that applies to both economics and climate change.
In recent years, psychology and medicine have suffered a series of embarrassing incidents, where well-established results collapsed under scrutiny. Many scientists believe we must reform how science is organised to avoid such errors.
So it is no surprise that the upcoming conference has attracted a number of high-profile experts on reproducibility.
On the surface, identifying flawed studies “looks like a very good mission”, says Philipp Schmid at the University of Erfurt in Germany, who studies science denial. He isn’t attending the conference.

/more

The article is paywalled, so I couldn't see whether they ran the ruler over the National Association of Scholars. As expected, the National Union of Scholars isn't national, and isn't run by or composed of Scholars, but is the astroturf mouthpiece for a rightwing billionaire (by inheritance) Sarah Scaife.

The National Association of Scholars (NAS) is a non-profit organization in the United States that opposes multiculturalism and affirmative action and seeks to counter what it considers a "liberal bias" in academia.[1]

In 2010 and 2011, its president was espousing climate contrarianism under the group's auspices, with no evident expertise in the climate science field.[2]

The Association's officers are not answerable to its membership: according to its 2009 IRS Form 990 (Part VI Section A), the Association doesn't have members (line 6), members don't elect the officers (line 7a), and the decisions of the governing body are not subject to members' approval (line 7b).[3] Mid-2000s IRS filings also indicate that the Association was controlled by 0 or 1 person.

The Association's major foundation donor is the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/N ... f_Scholars

The Sarah Scaife Foundation is one of the Scaife Foundations overseen by the late right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, whose wealth was inherited from the Mellon industrial, oil, aluminum and banking fortune. The foundations give tens of millions of dollars annually to fund right-wing organizations such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, and anti-immigrant and Islamophobic organizations such as the Center for Immigration Studies and the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?t ... Foundation

They are pulling that shit on a number of fronts using charities and I think some unwitting non-profits.....most are just paid mouthpieces.
and getting the crap into schools

https://climatechange.procon.org

OlivierK wrote:The article is paywalled, so I couldn't see whether they ran the ruler over the National Association of Scholars. ...

I subscribe to the NS. I'll check.

Second part of the article:

Sustainability critics
But he says there may be more to the NAS’s conference than that. “They use the findings from these areas to downplay climate change, which kind of shows that they have a specific agenda when writing their reports,” says Schmid.
The NAS has published reports attacking sustainability initiatives, including campaigns seeking to persuade universities to divest their fossil fuel investments. A 2018 NAS report on reproducibility said that climate scientists seek to “demonize carbon dioxide”.
NAS president Peter Wood says the world is warming, but “whether that is caused by human activity is a matter of significant dispute”. In fact, 97 per cent of climate scientists agree that human activity is responsible.
Responding to the accusations about the conference, Wood said: “We have been critics of the sustainability movement, which is not the same thing as climate science by a long stretch. The science and politics can and should be distinguished.”
The NAS’s focus on reproducibility is significant, says Sven Ove Hansson at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. “It seems to me to be a new tactic. The idea is to say, ‘Look here, the behavioural sciences have sometimes been wrong, therefore the climate scientists are wrong just now in what they are saying’,” he says.
Climate change hasn’t been implicated in the reproducibility crisis, says Schmid.

It looks as though they are aware of the dubious credentials but they haven't exposed them. Just criticised their approach.

Apparently we are approaching a Maunder Minimum.
The denialists will have a field-day if this happens: "Global Warming? Rubbish!"
The Sun - That well know Science Journal...

CHILL IN THE AIR Earth about to enter 30-YEAR ‘Mini Ice Age’ with -50C temperatures in coldest regions, scientists warn

EARTH could face frosty weather and biting snow storms over the next 30 years as an ominous "solar minimum" grips the planet, a scientist has warned.
The cold snaps – caused by the Sun entering a natural "hibernation" – threaten to trigger food shortages as temperatures slump across the planet, experts say.
Earth is bracing for a solar minimum: a quiet period in which the Sun fires less energy – or, heat – at our planet than usual.
According to Nasa, the Sun will reach its lowest activity in over 200 years in 2020.
This could cause average temperatures to drop as much as 1C in a cold spell lasting 12 months, according to Northumbria University expert Valentina Zharkova.
That might not sound like much, but a whole degree is very significant for global average temperatures.