tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post2039928387482634504..comments2024-03-29T10:51:27.752+13:00Comments on Not PC: Weekend ramble, #15Peter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-57292830334351132972007-07-15T15:26:00.000+12:002007-07-15T15:26:00.000+12:00Another "well" placed recording station in NZ: NIW...Another "well" placed recording station in NZ: NIWA has a pollution measuring device sitting under the motorway just off Khyber Pass, Auckland. They must honestly think we are thick.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-49981755043440249792007-07-15T00:17:00.000+12:002007-07-15T00:17:00.000+12:00Whale Oil said, "My Carbon footprint thankfully wa...Whale Oil said, <I>"My Carbon footprint thankfully was much larger than average at 26.45. The average is 7.5."</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps with my own inadvertently modest footprint I should offer "carbon offsets" so those like yourself who are using the planet properly can receive just reward?Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-945528196060233422007-07-14T21:58:00.000+12:002007-07-14T21:58:00.000+12:00Looks like a lot of good stuff there. He he...I se...Looks like a lot of good stuff there. <BR/><BR/>He he...I see you managed to sneak in some Sat afternoon criticism of Popper via Hicks's piece:<BR/><BR/><I>If you come over to the Anglo-American side of the divide, by the time you get to the middle of the twentieth century, the major intellectuals at that time are also people who are strongly non-rationalistic. Think of the later Wittgenstein and people like Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend, as well as, to a significantly lesser degree, Karl Popper.</I><BR/><BR/>Hicks does not explain in what way Popper is similar to Kuhn, Wittgenstein, and Feyerabend, so it just seems like the usual guilt by association. If Popper is strongly non-rationalistic but to a significantly lesser degree than Wittgenstein et al then what is Hicks really saying: that Popper is just a bit non-rationalistic? Funny way to put it.<BR/><BR/>Popper was the first philisopher to fully recognise the poverty of justificationism. Among other things, justificationism leads to the following errors:<BR/><BR/> Authoritarianism<BR/> Essentialism<BR/> Fondationalism<BR/> Inductivism<BR/> Scientism<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately objectivists are justificationists and that is one of my main stumbling blocks with objectivism. Most objectivists appear not to have a clue about Popper and seem to think that caricatures of Popper like the Dykes paper cut it (and I realize I still have to respond to that - difficulty is how to do it without writing a paper!). <BR/><BR/>The alternative to justificationism is criticalism, which is about the search for truth, not the search for justified belief. <BR/><BR/>There is much to commend in Rand. But she was not infallible and made mistakes (as did Popper). The major mistake was to place her philosophy in a justificationist framework. Objectivists need to recognise this and introduce criticalism into objectivism. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, that is my bit of a rant for a Saturday morning!Brian Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06850292025352036051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-66073140566492732122007-07-14T21:46:00.000+12:002007-07-14T21:46:00.000+12:00My Carbon footprint thankfully was much larger tha...My Carbon footprint thankfully was much larger than average at 26.45. The average is 7.5.<BR/><BR/>Is this carbon footprint thing like cricket where the more you get the better you are.Whaleoilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678132752321342863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-22574664645268802392007-07-14T21:38:00.000+12:002007-07-14T21:38:00.000+12:00The problem with postmodernists is that they'll fl...The problem with postmodernists is that they'll fly to a conference (aeroynamics, thermodynamics) and give a presentation on their laptop (about as technologically dense as you can get) about the inability of science and human reason to describe reality without any apparent irony.<BR/><BR/>In practice though, the great crime of the postmodernists is to instill militant unreasoned skepticism in the general population. The result is indifference to any -ism you care to name and a mind occupied by an inarticulate 'whatever'.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10765006817084523046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-75231957953020806612007-07-14T17:37:00.000+12:002007-07-14T17:37:00.000+12:00PC said...Is there a difference between the foreca...PC said...<BR/><I>Is there a difference between the forecasts of the opinions of experts and scientific forecasting? "Yes!" say forecasting experts Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green, and the climate forecasts produced by the IPCC for the next hundred years fall into the former camp.</I><BR/><BR/>I think <I>Eddie Visits Frequently</I> needs to read that very <A HREF="http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf" REL="nofollow">interesting paper</A>.<BR/><BR/>For us who are well-versed in the developing numerical model on forecasting algorithms, the article addressed what I have been arguing all along in this AGW debate. Some IPCC authors, I say the majority are just being novice in numerical modeling. There is no doubt that they are excellent climate scientists in doing what they do, but coming to modeling, it is a completely different domain. The general public thinks that, "Oh surely , he is a climate scientist". Meaning that he/she automatically an expert or knowledgeable in <I>numerical modeling</I>. NOPE. These are completely 2 different domains. Some are good at both, such as Professor Richard Lindzen (<I>one just needs to check out the complexity of the differential calculus model derivation in his papers which are freely downloadable from his site</I>). The majority are only good at being a descriptive climate researches where (<I>no modeling is involved</I>). The IPCC is full of experts from the latter (descriptive climate researches), and there is no surprised at all here about this criticism of the IPCC forecasting methods by Armstrong & Kesten.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps, those IPCC authors of the forecasting chapter should read the proper scientific methods of forecasting by subscribing to the <BR/><A HREF="http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505555/description#description" REL="nofollow">Internation Journal of Forecasting</A>. This is one of the journals that I regularly scour to look for new improved algorithms. There is always new ones that are being published that showed improved accuracy over existing ones.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-78570365141877229512007-07-14T16:05:00.000+12:002007-07-14T16:05:00.000+12:00Moving to czechlovakia is an option that becomes m...Moving to czechlovakia is an option that becomes more desirable each day (as is moving to Australia, Ireland ,Denmark, or just about any first world country except the U.S).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-87523928059102409972007-07-14T16:02:00.000+12:002007-07-14T16:02:00.000+12:00Regarding the film 'Lives of Others', I think the ...Regarding the film 'Lives of Others', I think the main character's name is Weisner. A review can be found at:<BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li1S6zFdb8MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com