c0nc0rdance vs. Thunderf00t

[MrBogosity]

Your blanket assertion of falsity makes it a little hard to respond as I am unsure which premise you deny.

It was that whole section of post I quoted. I'm saying the process of trying to come up with a prior helps you evaluate how meaningful the statement is. If you can't make p(H) anything other than 0 or 1, then it can't possibly describe anything about the universe. Or, to put it another way, it's a statement that can be applied to ALL POSSIBLE universes no matter how they operate, and so it cannot be used to tell you specifics about THIS universe.

With Phlogiston Theory, p(H) was always 1, even with wildly different evidences (e.g., Phlogiston causing wood to lose mass when burned but magnesium to gain mass). As such, it told us nothing about the universe—and even delayed the discovery of oxygen about 100 years!

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Because so much of Stefan Molyneux's identity is tied into Ayn Rand's philosophy, it seems reasonable that he would gush more over her writings than anybody else's. 

I actually have a lot of problems with Stefan Molyneux, mostly because his arguments and techniques are  based on rhetoric and strategies, and not so much on reason and evidence.  His franchise isn't about truth, so much as it has become about himself.  As much as he criticizes people for being sophists, he is himself a sophist, too, and much of his information about psychology is about 90 years out of date.  It also doesn't help that he's a climate change denyer and a logical positivist. 

Don't get me wrong, Stefan is great when it comes to theater and history.  These are his specialties, but like all specialists, he has a tendency to greatly overestimate his expertise in fields he is not an expert in.  That's where a lot of his problems come from, and it is really difficult for experts to explain to him his factual errors.  He doesn't want to listen, because his show is all about him, not about having a rational discussion to seek out truth as he so often claims.

That whole paragraph is what he calls "arguing by adjective".
As in it's not an argument.

Because so much of Stefan Molyneux's identity is tied into Ayn Rand's philosophy, it seems reasonable that he would gush more over her writings than anybody else's.

He has an entire vid talking about what she was wrong about.  Please folks, enough with this "If you agree with X in some aspects, that must mean you worship everything about them" polarizing.

It also doesn't help that he's a climate change denyer

Hey, I'll believe what the greenies have to say when they act like they actually believe what they say.  Fair enough?

Logical Positivism is based on verification.  Essentially, it means that a statement is only meaningful unless it can be proven true.  This is a self destructing idea, because you can't prove that only statements proven true are meaningful.  Also, it is really hard to prove anything true in any absolute sense.  This philosophy of science comes from the Vienna Circle, which dates back about 90 years or so.

So a false statement can be meaningful?  Example please
Not to mention "meaningful" is subjective anyway.  Meaningful to who?  And in what way?

And "nothing is certain" is a statement of certainty.  I'm afraid you're the one with the self detonating statement here.

Logical Positivism was replaced by falsification.  Rather then try to verify everything, we attempt to falsify statements instead.  This is how contemporary science works, it is also why science only deals with falsifiable statements.  Statements that cannot be falsified are considered metaphysical, not scientific, and cannot be regarded as any basis for truth.  Metaphysics is about conceptualizing the possible.  Science is about rejecting what we know is false.

I challenge you to find me one quote where he says anything contrary to this.

This all sounds like splitting hairs over nothing to me.

[Professor_Fennec]

That whole paragraph is what he calls "arguing by adjective".
As in it's not an argument.

These are fair criticisms.  Just because I didn't go into detail about what he gets wrong doesn't mean I am wrong or that I have no argument.  Brushing things away by calling them "arguing by adjective" is just another rhetorical device intended to doge said criticisms. 

Just to give you an example to show I'm not full of hot air, he continually references psychoanalysis, which is a well debunked pseudoscience.  Psychology has already gone through behaviorism, cognitivism and now behavioral cognitivism since Sigmund Freud.  With each new paradigm shift, theories have been revised and replaced, just like you would expect with any science. 

He has an entire vid talking about what she was wrong about.  Please folks, enough with this "If you agree with X in some aspects, that must mean you worship everything about them" polarizing.

Hey, I'll believe what the greenies have to say when they act like they actually believe what they say.  Fair enough?

Since when did belief dictate truth?  I thought you were an atheist and a skeptic?  Climate change and global warming are real because the science demonstrates it to be so.  Just take a look at Potholer54's channel.  He explains the science in great detail, answering most every major point of the climate change deniers. 

Don't worry, I am sympathetic to your point of view.  The fact that climate change is happening, and the fact that it is anthropogenic does not mean that we should all bask in the glory of the omnipotent state to save us with socialism and bureaucratic control.  On the contrary, it will take the personal responsibility of everybody to make less of a mess.  The atmosphere that we breath is an ungovernable commons that the entire Earth shares.  When you pollute in it, you are making an offense against everybody else.  For very practical reasons, we are unable to just stop doing our collective pollution, so everybody who holds to libertarian values ought to choose to reduce their pollution much as possible.  You don't need a state to make a change like this.  All you need is good ethics, scientific awareness and a market demand for products that pollute less or not at all.  But that is really hard to do with so much misinformation being fed to the public by oil interests via the news media. 

So a false statement can be meaningful?  Example please
Not to mention "meaningful" is subjective anyway.  Meaningful to who?  And in what way?

We are not debating whether or not false statements can be meaningful.  That was never my contention.  My contention was to point out that the Verification Principle was self destructive.  The verification principle roughly states that in order for a statement to be cognitively meaningful, it must be verifiable.  Because the Verification Principle cannot itself be verified to be true, it describes itself as not meeting its own criteria for meaningfulness.  In other words, it self destructs.  Falsification bypasses this problem because it works in a completely different way. 

Rather then find positive evidence for a statement, via verification, falsification tests a statement to see if it can be proven false. 

Verification = Finding positive evidence that a statement is true.
Falsification = Finding negative evidence that a statement is false. 

Modern science uses the latter of the two, not the former.  That's just the way it is.  Verification just leaves you way to open to cherry picking and confirmation bias.

And "nothing is certain" is a statement of certainty.  I'm afraid you're the one with the self detonating statement here.
This all sounds like splitting hairs over nothing to me.

Have you ever seen absolute certainty demonstrated?  How do you know it even exists?  Without proof, I deny the existence of absolute certainty.  Strictly as a matter of probability, nothing in the real world is absolutely certain, especially when it comes to quantum mechanics, which is more fundamental to the classical physics we experience.  The more times we find a lack of absolute certainty, the less likely the existence of absolute certainty becomes.

When I say "noting is certain" I am saying that absolute certainty is so unlikely that its existence is practically zero, even though it isn't absolutely zero.  This is why Shane brings up Bayesian probability theory, to deal with things like this.  Ya dig?

I challenge you to find me one quote where he says anything contrary to this.

The Verification Principle, from Logical Positivism, is the cornerstone of most of Stefan Molyneaux's arguments, including UPB.  He doesn't use falsification at all in any of his arguments.  Falsification stands in contrast to Logical Positivism as they are incompatible philosophies.  What more information do you need from me for you to accept my point?  Don't believe me?  Go check it out for yourself.  The Verification Principle is usually at the very beginning of most of his arguments that use it.

[AnCap Dave]

>A Stefan Molyneux debate



This gon' be good.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

These are fair criticisms.  Just because I didn't go into detail about what he gets wrong doesn't mean I am wrong or that I have no argument.

So you had an argument but chose not put it on the table and I'm expected to just take your word for that?  Sure...

Brushing things away by calling them "arguing by adjective" is just another rhetorical device intended to doge said criticisms.

No it isn't.  It's called "bald assertions are not arguments."  It's just name calling which means nothing.

Just to give you an example to show I'm not full of hot air, he continually references psychoanalysis, which is a well debunked pseudoscience.  Psychology has already gone through behaviorism, cognitivism and now behavioral cognitivism since Sigmund Freud.  With each new paradigm shift, theories have been revised and replaced, just like you would expect with any science.

That's not an example, you made another sweeping generalization there.  The fact that you're keeping your arguments nice and vague is really not helping you here.

Since when did belief dictate truth?  I thought you were an atheist and a skeptic?  Climate change and global warming are real because the science demonstrates it to be so.  Just take a look at Potholer54's channel.  He explains the science in great detail, answering most every major point of the climate change deniers.

For the same reason I can safely reject socialized medicine despite not having the time to read all the laws in our books about it.  The politicians up here all know the law far better than I do.  And they don't use our system.  They avoid it like the plague.  So if they know more about our system than I do and they clearly don't think it's good, that's all I need.
As I've said before, I can't take global warming seriously because they've cried wolf dozens of times and are never taken to task for it and even now, they don't act in a matter that suggests that they really think global warming is a problem and if they don't think it's a problem, why should I?
When they cut all this "going green is just for the peasants" nonsense, I'll take it a little more seriously.  Until then, it's just another government program to me.

Don't worry, I am sympathetic to your point of view.  The fact that climate change is happening, and the fact that it is anthropogenic does not mean that we should all bask in the glory of the omnipotent state to save us with socialism and bureaucratic control.  On the contrary, it will take the personal responsibility of everybody to make less of a mess.  The atmosphere that we breath is an ungovernable commons that the entire Earth shares.  When you pollute in it, you are making an offense against everybody else.  For very practical reasons, we are unable to just stop doing our collective pollution, so everybody who holds to libertarian values ought to choose to reduce their pollution much as possible.  You don't need a state to make a change like this.  All you need is good ethics, scientific awareness and a market demand for products that pollute less or not at all.  But that is really hard to do with so much misinformation being fed to the public by oil interests via the news media.

I ride a bike to work, I don't even own a car.  So I'm kinda sick and tired of being lectured to by a bunch of pampered princes in academia who all pollute 20 times more than me and support a state who destroys ecosystems and gets away with it.

Modern science uses the latter of the two, not the former.  That's just the way it is.  Verification just leaves you way to open to cherry picking and confirmation bias.

Have you ever seen absolute certainty demonstrated?  How do you know it even exists?  Without proof, I deny the existence of absolute certainty.  Strictly as a matter of probability, nothing in the real world is absolutely certain, especially when it comes to quantum mechanics, which is more fundamental to the classical physics we experience.  The more times we find a lack of absolute certainty, the less likely the existence of absolute certainty becomes.

When I say "noting is certain" I am saying that absolute certainty is so unlikely that its existence is practically zero, even though it isn't absolutely zero.  This is why Shane brings up Bayesian probability theory, to deal with things like this.  Ya dig?

The Verification Principle, from Logical Positivism, is the cornerstone of most of Stefan Molyneaux's arguments, including UPB.  He doesn't use falsification at all in any of his arguments.  Falsification stands in contrast to Logical Positivism as they are incompatible philosophies.  What more information do you need from me for you to accept my point?  Don't believe me?  Go check it out for yourself.  The Verification Principle is usually at the very beginning of most of his arguments that use it.

He...does falsify statements...all the time.  I really don't think you've actually listened to his stuff.  This really sounds like it's all just based on heresay.

[Professor_Fennec]

So you had an argument but chose not put it on the table and I'm expected to just take your word for that?  Sure...

No it isn't.  It's called "bald assertions are not arguments."  It's just name calling which means nothing.

That's not an example, you made another sweeping generalization there.  The fact that you're keeping your arguments nice and vague is really not helping you here.

For the same reason I can safely reject socialized medicine despite not having the time to read all the laws in our books about it.  The politicians up here all know the law far better than I do.  And they don't use our system.  They avoid it like the plague.  So if they know more about our system than I do and they clearly don't think it's good, that's all I need.
As I've said before, I can't take global warming seriously because they've cried wolf dozens of times and are never taken to task for it and even now, they don't act in a matter that suggests that they really think global warming is a problem and if they don't think it's a problem, why should I?
When they cut all this "going green is just for the peasants" nonsense, I'll take it a little more seriously.  Until then, it's just another government program to me.

I ride a bike to work, I don't even own a car.  So I'm kinda sick and tired of being lectured to by a bunch of pampered princes in academia who all pollute 20 times more than me and support a state who destroys ecosystems and gets away with it.

He...does falsify statements...all the time.  I really don't think you've actually listened to his stuff.  This really sounds like it's all just based on heresay.

1) You are committing a tu quoque fallacy on pretty much all environmentalists.  Just because they are hypocrites does not mean you get to appeal to their hypocrisy.  If you ride a bike to work, that's fine because nobody cares.  That has nothing to do with the truth behind global climate change and warming.  You are also making very broad assertions of your own, making it look like they are all a bunch of rich people living in ivory towers.  That's just not the case at all, and I can promise you that the scientists sounding the alarm bells are not living in posh living conditions like Al Gore. 

2) Pointing out that Stefan Molyneux uses the outdated pseudoscience of psychoanalysis in his videos, particularly his call-in show's dream interpretations, pointing out that the crux of his arguments is the Verification Principle, and pointing out that he's a denier of climate change in defiance of the evidence, are not "bald assertions".    These are facts.  Deal with them.

Do I seriously need to point you to his climate denial video where he pretty much parrots Christopher Monckton's bullshit?  Potholer54 debunked that claptrap a long time ago.

Perhaps you'd like me to show you one of his arguments that use the Verification Principle, or perhaps one of his many psychoanalysis call-in show segments?  I have to ask, have you been watching his programming? 

He...does falsify statements...all the time.  I really don't think you've actually listened to his stuff.  This really sounds like it's all just based on heresay.

He does falsify statements all the time, you say?  That sounds like a balled assertion, not an argument to me.  Projection much?

Stefan Molyneux is not a scientist.  He's a very bad philosopher and a good historian.  You have to learn to accept what he says through that filter, otherwise you'll get bamboozled by his bullshit.  He talks way to much outside of his field of expertise.   

[MrBogosity]

1) You are committing a tu quoque fallacy on pretty much all environmentalists.  Just because they are hypocrites does not mean you get to appeal to their hypocrisy.  If you ride a bike to work, that's fine because nobody cares.  That has nothing to do with the truth behind global climate change and warming.  You are also making very broad assertions of your own, making it look like they are all a bunch of rich people living in ivory towers.  That's just not the case at all, and I can promise you that the scientists sounding the alarm bells are not living in posh living conditions like Al Gore.

I think you two are talking past each other. You seem to be asking "Is it a real effect?" and Hawkeye seems to be asking "How seriously should I take it?" Two different discussions.

[Travis Retriever]

I think you two are talking past each other. You seem to be asking "Is it a real effect?" and Hawkeye seems to be asking "How seriously should I take it?" Two different discussions.

Reminds me of a few...interesting tidbits I've gleaned over the years regarding this deal:
For one, I'm just not worried.  Even according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's own estimates, the WORST case scenario is 2 feet deeper oceans after 1000 years.

As you have pointed out, something often not talked about is that increasing the carbon dioxide and increasing global temperature actually has benefits too.  I recall you pointing out that even the government scientists themselves estimate the costs will exceed the benefits starting around 2040.

Not ALL scientists think "cutting back" or "get govco involved" is the solution.  It's not the scientists.  It's the media pinheads and hippy morons who purport to speak for them who are saying that.

Alarmist:  It's us, our cows, cars, coal power plants, etc!
Denialist: It's the sun, ants, termites, volcanoes, etc!
An actual scientist:  It's all of those things you morons!
(Stolen/paraphrased from Shane, natch.)

And of course, as me, Stef, Jacob Spiney, and even ReasonTV have pointed out, we could do something like the marine cloud whitening program and reverse ALL man-made climate change for less than a billion dollars without any of the issues of current proposed ideas which are either pointless cash/power grabs (carbon taxes/credits, subsidies, etc).  And "cutting back?" Just a painful way to postpone the inevitable.  I mean come on, people!  Using up resources to turn into better things we value more is the entire basis of the economy (well, okay, it's technically mutually beneficial voluntary exchange, but close enough. ). The idea that we need to cut back is just asinine.  Lots of things we consider resources and swag were once considered waste because we lacked the technology.  Gasoline being a waste product 120 years ago? Ditto for Oil over 500 years ago.  And who can forgot the trees saved by the internet.  I bet my thumbdrive has saved more trees than all the hippies ever will or could.  It's not like Anarcho capitalists, including Austrian Economists haven't dived into this stuff.  It deals with economic value and transactions, ergo it IS an economic issue as it deals with preserving value and private property, and needs to be addressed from that angle.*

And as me and Shane have constantly pointed out, we could also fix the extra carbon dioxide bit by going to nuclear power.  If we tore down all the coal power plants and replaced them with Thorium ones and were able to reenrich the 'waste' (which we can't now because of bullshit government anti-nuclear weapons treaties) we'd have cheap, clean, efficient power.  Enough to last over 1000 years.  Without having to cut back on a damn thing.

At the very least going nuclear would help with pollution. All the nuclear disasters in history have produced only a mere 20 tons of radioactive waste. Compare that to 50 per year from a single perfectly functioning coal plant.  And of course, the mercury and other crap it spews into the atmosphere.
Solar and wind are nowhere NEAR large scale globally viable at this time.  They have no 3 phase power (REALLY hurts efficiency and/or reliability) and have no power on demand (NOT good), and have more energy changes (from wind, to electrical, to battery, etc) if you want to overcome that no power on demand thing which further harms efficiency. Maybe after nuclear has run it's course, maybe as niche market, but certainly not now is it anywhere NEAR viable.  While nuclear is something awesome, and good right here, right now.

What's more, we could switch to a stable currency *coughGoldcough* and since we'd have less incentive to spend all our money before it loses its value, (THANKS FEDERAL RESERVE!), we'd consume less...and so we'd waste less.

So if there IS a problem regarding Climate Change, it's one that we already have a fair chunk of very good free market solutions to.  All we need is for govco and its followers (including/especially the hippies who don't know what the fuck they're talking about) to STFU & GTFO of our way.

*As The "Are You An Austrian" quiz has pointed out for this:
https://mises.org/quiz.aspx
14. What is your view of economics and the environment?
The Austrian Answer:
"Virtually all issues concerning the environment involve conflicts over ownership. So long as there is private ownership, owners themselves solve these conflicts by forbidding and punishing trespass. The incentive to conserve is an inherent feature of the market incentive structure. So too is the incentive to preserve all things of value. The liability for soiling another's property should be borne by the person who caused the damage. Common ownership is no solution. Because national parks, for example, are not privately owned, the goal of economical management will always be elusive."
Simple, no?  If you want a more in depth answer, concerning, specifically air pollution, I'd recommend reading this article:
https://mises.org/daily/2120
By Murray N. Rothbard which deals with it in far greater detail.  This IS an economic issue and is and has long been dealt as one.
And of course, Fish Legal in the UK and other examples Shane has pointed out.  And let's not forget the rainforest issue...clear cutting? Only on government land, while loggers plant more trees to ensure future returns.   And the Canadian Fisheries...

And last but not least, as I said on Google Plus:
Fact: Governments are the world's biggest polluters by far even if you don't count war.

So if someone is railing on about the environment, yet continually ignores and evades the government's destruction of it, or, even worse, demands a political solution to environmental issues, said person is a bullshiter you can safely ignore.

[Professor_Fennec]

I think you two are talking past each other. You seem to be asking "Is it a real effect?" and Hawkeye seems to be asking "How seriously should I take it?" Two different discussions.

It is a real effect and it should be taken seriously.  Its been pointed out that the effect, if any, will not happen for some time.  However, there are some problems with this line of reasoning. 

1) Sea level rise and higher temperatures will not be the only problems.  Methane hydrate deposits and methane trapped in permafrost are already being released, which will only serve to intensify the global warming effect and subsequent climate changes.  The increases in temperature and CO2 have already been shown to be deadly to marine life, especially along the coasts.  A lot of people depend on the ocean for food, so ocean acidification will be very disruptive to them. 

2) The fact that we won't have to deal with the more serious effects of global warming and climate change  in our lifetimes is not a reason to brush away concern.  Much as we talk about the unethical nature of the Federal Reserve being used as a mechanism to barrow against the earnings of future generations of people, so to are we causing a problem that future generations will have to face.  And this problem will likely get far worse beyond 100 years from now, especially if we reach the point of no return when positive feedback fully kicks in. 

3) Geoengineering to mitigate the problem of global warming and climate change is not a solution, but a treatment.  If you have a patient with an unhealthy lifestyle that asks for pills to fix everything, what would you say?  As a doctor, you would advise lifestyle changes as a long term solution, but human nature being what it is, patients rarely ever make those changes, so doctors typically put patients on a cocktail of drugs to treat high cholesterol, diabetes and high blood pressure, and these drugs are not without side effects.   That's what geoengineering for global climate change is, a treatment for lifestyle related illness that will likely have unintended side effects. 

4) This is a tragedy of the commons problem, and I don't believe it will go away through government regulation.  Rather then tell everybody to do their part to stop climate change, like a socialist bureaucrat, I'm going to tell everybody to stop doing their part to cause it.  If pollution is an aggression against the entire world, then we are obligated by our ethics to reduce and eventually stop the harm we are causing everybody else. 

But if we want to get back on point, "how seriously should we take it," may I suggest Potholer54's most recent video:

[yt]VNgqv4yVyDw[/yt]

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Just because they are hypocrites does not mean you get to appeal to their hypocrisy.

Actually yes it does because I already said, these people know the topic far better than I do and their actions suggest that they don't believe it or at least don't think it's that big a deal.  So if they know better than I do and they don't believe it, that's all I need.

Actions matter, words don't.  I know they say it's a big deal and we should take it seriously.  That means nothing.  Fear sells.  Good news gets you ignored.  I've already done this dance before.  Heck, the climate change hysterics have gotten strangely quiet these days even.  You'd think they'd get louder the closer we got to armageddon.

And really, the whole thing is rendered moot because ending the state would end the vast majority of pollution anyway with no more getting in the way of progress, no more subsidies going to the careless, the wasteful and the foolish and no more wars.  Problem solved.  Whatever environomental problems might be left after that would be small potatoes and easily managed.  All the guilt tripping nonsense is just wasting everyone's time.

He does falsify statements all the time, you say?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tobN6iY4iIs  Whole bunch of examples in there just to pull one out of the air.

Refutes a lot of media nonsense quite a lot.

Still have no clue what you're going on about with the "Verification is wrong cuz reasons" nonsense.  Really sounds like vague hair splitting just to look smart to me.

[Professor_Fennec]

No, you still don't get to make an appeal to hypocrisy.  If anything, the actions of wealthy people like Al Gore tell me that they in fact do not know what they are talking about.  Given how wealthy they are, you would expect them to be the most able to purchase a carbon negative lifestyle.  Between building their own solar roofs and wind turbines, and switching to more efficient home lighting and geothermal HVAC systems, you would expect them to be putting these technologies to good use.  As far as I can tell, they are not.  That's too bad, because when wealthy people become early adopters, they fund innovations in manufacturing that lower costs, making these technologies more affordable to the masses. 

So far, we agree, but where we disagree is the notion that liberal hypocrisy has anything to do with climate science.  It does not, and to suggest otherwise is a tu quoque fallacy.  Being a hypocrite and being factually correct are not mutually exclusive.  Why?  Because hypocrisy is a matter of ethics, while facts are a matter of epistemology.  These are two different branches of philosophy.  They don't overlap.  Which leads me to one problem I have with UPB, where verbal gymnastics are used to turn value judgments (ought) into facts (is), but we'l get to UPB in a moment. 

My bottom line is, if you want to be critical of climate science and what we should do about global warming and climate change, then look to the scientists, not the celebrities.  When you criticize climate science based on the behavior of celebrities and rich liberals, you just look like a sophist.  Why?  Because an appeal to hypocrisy exploits a heuristic people use to judge the reliability of the information they receive.  It is in no way a methodical algorithm for the determination of truth, like science. 

To explain the difference between algorithms vs. heuristics, I suggest this Crash Course video at 4m4s:

[yt]R-sVnmmw6WY?t=4m4s[/yt]

and

Wikipedia: [wiki]Heuristics_in_judgment_and_decision-making[/wiki]

As for Stefan Molyneux, it doesn't matter if he's ever used falsification or not.  My point was that his major arguments, such as UPB, are based on verification, not falsification.  If he uses a self destructing premise, like the verification principle, as a cornerstone to an argument, such as UPB, then it logically follows that the rest of the argument is wrong.  He has to start over or fix his arguments so that they do not rely upon the verification principle.

But since you don't seem to understand why the verification principle is wrong to use, let me explain in a simple syllogism. 

The verification principle roughly states that in order for a statement to be meaningful, it must be verifiable. 
The verification principle cannot be verified.
Therefore, the verification principle has no meaning. 

I do not know how I can make this any clearer or any more black and white. 

You can seen an example right here on bullet point two at 1m59s: [yt]CueDiner6t0?t=1m59s[/yt]

He defines science as "a statement that is 'true' must describe something that is objective, rational or predictable".  This is a modified version of the verification principle and it is also NOT how science works.  Though we do not verify statements in science anymore, we do attempt to falsify them because the former method of inquiry opens us up to confirmation bias and the cherry picking fallacy. 

Here is another example at 17m18s: [yt]A12hmmRALo0?t=17m18s[/yt]

He criticizes agnostics for saying that gods are very unlikely, but not impossible.  [He's actually wrong here because Agnostic Atheists reject the idea of gods, but they don't assert the positive claim that gods do not exist, but I digress.]  He then says that agnostics are wrong because their are no tests that will detect a god, thus gods do not exist.  You cannot make such an argument unless you are using the Verification Principle.  More over, it puts the burden of proof on himself to prove that gods do not exist as a hard atheist.  Do you see the connection he's making with Logical Positivism, yet?

The reason somebody would call themselves an agnostic theist is, not because their are no tests for gods, but because gods are not falsifiable concepts.  Instead, they rely upon Bayesian probability theory to determine that gods are extremely unlikely, and reject them on that basis alone.  But that is not the same as positively proving that gods do not exist. 

In science, before you can develop a standard test for something, like a god, you must first come up with an experiment that will falsify your theory.  Using the LHC, scientists were able to test the standard model of particle physics based on predictions it makes about the Higgs boson at a given power level.  The experiment failed to falsify the theory, because the Higgs boson was found where expected.  Now that we know something about Higgs bosons, scientists can perhaps develop specialized tests specifically for detecting Higgs bosons.  But until that part of the Standard Model was tested, developing a specific test for the Higgs boson would have been impossible.  Nobody would know what the properties would be of what ever it was they were looking for!

In science, we have what are known as "gold standard" tests.  These are the original tests used to attempt falsification of a given theory.  That makes these tests extremely valuable in evaluating other methods that are often quicker and less expensive.  Let's say your doctor is looking for a particular protein in your blood.  The cheep test would probably be a colormetric method, where different reagents are mixed together with your plasma, resulting in a measurable color change.  Tests like this are often developed because gold standard tests like X-Ray crystallography and chromatography are very expensive.  If the newer, cheaper tests can be shown to be just as good or at least good enough compared to the gold standard methods, then they are sold to labs for commercial use.  Without a "gold standard" for falsifying a testable god theory, a test for gods doesn't make any sense.  Without knowing the properties of gods, if they exist, how could you possibly test for them?  You can't!

There is something you need to consider, Hawkeye, concerning Stefan Molyneux, and that is the Dunning–Kruger effect, and many of Molyneux's videos are rife with it. 
Wikipeda: [wiki]Dunning–Kruger_effect[/wiki]

This is why I tell people to beware when Stefan Molyneux talks about areas of expertise that are clearly outside of his area of expertise, such as the sciences of climatology and psychology.  He's grossly overestimating his abilities in these areas. 

[Ibrahim90]

>A Stefan Molyneux debate



This gon' be good.

what he said ^

[MrBogosity]

No, you still don't get to make an appeal to hypocrisy.  If anything, the actions of wealthy people like Al Gore tell me that they in fact do not know what they are talking about.  Given how wealthy they are, you would expect them to be the most able to purchase a carbon negative lifestyle.  Between building their own solar roofs and wind turbines, and switching to more efficient home lighting and geothermal HVAC systems, you would expect them to be putting these technologies to good use.  As far as I can tell, they are not.  That's too bad, because when wealthy people become early adopters, they fund innovations in manufacturing that lower costs, making these technologies more affordable to the masses.

My bottom line is, if you want to be critical of climate science and what we should do about global warming and climate change, then look to the scientists, not the celebrities.

Okay, so how many climate change scientists are doing the things you mentioned?
 

So far, we agree, but where we disagree is the notion that liberal hypocrisy has anything to do with climate science.  It does not, and to suggest otherwise is a tu quoque fallacy.  Being a hypocrite and being factually correct are not mutually exclusive.  Why?  Because hypocrisy is a matter of ethics, while facts are a matter of epistemology.  These are two different branches of philosophy.  They don't overlap.

It absolutely does demonstrate, at best, belief-in-belief. It's our beliefs that motivate our actions, and if someone's actions are incongruous with their stated beliefs, it's a very strong indication that they don't actually believe it, even if they THINK they do.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

The verification principle roughly states that in order for a statement to be meaningful, it must be verifiable.
The verification principle cannot be verified.
Therefore, the verification principle has no meaning. 

NOW we have something on the table to examine and not vague fog speak.

"The verification principle cannot be verified"

One question: How do you know?  You just stated that like it was a foregone conclusion we already agreed on when it's nothing of the sort.

You've been called out on the whole business of "Nothing is certain" being itself a statement of certainty and now you're trying to employ some sophistry to flip the argument around.  Nice try but ain't gonna cut it.


And no, UPB is NOT based on the verification principle so thanks for admitting you didn't actually watch the vid in question.
"Consistency is preferable to inconsistency with regards to principles and propositions because inconsistency being preferable is a contradiction."
"Any principle or proposition which is not consistent or cannot be consistently applied cannot be valid."

It's the same as the scientific method.
"The universe is consistent."
"Any theory that is not consist, both unto itself (logic) and unto reality (empericism), cannot be valid."

He defines science as "a statement that is 'true' must describe something that is objective, rational or predictable".  This is a modified version of the verification principle and it is also NOT how science works.  Though we do not verify statements in science anymore, we do attempt to falsify them because the former method of inquiry opens us up to confirmation bias and the cherry picking fallacy.

This is just more fog.  You're not defining your terms and you're making bald assertions.  "opens us up to confirmation bias and the cherry picking fallacy" why?  Because you say so?  That means nothing.

Besides, aren't you thus saying that something CAN be objective, rational and predictable and yet still be false?  Example please.

The reason somebody would call themselves an agnostic theist is, not because their are no tests for gods, but because gods are not falsifiable concepts.

Nor is the easter bunny yet nobody calls themselves agnostic with regards to that.  What's your point?  The whole criticism of agnostics is there is no logical reason to fence sit on the issue.  Until it is fact, it is fiction.  That's how it works.

[MrBogosity]

And no, UPB is NOT based on the verification principle so thanks for admitting you didn't actually watch the vid in question.
"Consistency is preferable to inconsistency with regards to principles and propositions because inconsistency being preferable is a contradiction."
"Any principle or proposition which is not consistent or cannot be consistently applied cannot be valid."

It's the same as the scientific method.
"The universe is consistent."
"Any theory that is not consist, both unto itself (logic) and unto reality (empericism), cannot be valid."

In philosophy terms, this is the Law of Noncontradiction. And it's accepted by pretty much everyone. I really don't see any way anyone could make an argument for the opposite, since it's pretty much self-defeating by definition!