GeologyRocks

I know the type of person you're talking about all too well. They always seem to know they're right, they just need you to help them find proof for it. They also know you're wrong. It's unimportant that they don't know what it is you believe and with what evidence you back it up, they already know you're wrong. Presumably this is because they know they're right in that proofless kind of way, and by simple logic everyone else must therefore be wrong.

If someone doesn't understand an idea too well it might not make sense to them (if energy can't be created, how can the big bang have happened? Summers were warmer in my day, and anyway it snowed loads last winter, so how can there be global warming?). This isn't too surprising. Not everyone is going to have a good scientific education. I think The Onion may have hit on the problem that arises here

Relatively few people who misunderstand an idea are going to take the time to fully research it. It's hard work to fully get to grips with a scientific field, particularly if your prior scientific education was at highschool level a great many years ago. If you're (understandably) skeptical or unsure about an idea you'll then be a whole lot more receptive to alternative ideas which will probably be easier to grasp. I mean Neal Adams' Youtube videos showing an expanding earth, while fundamentally flawed, are a lot more accessible to most than the way in which a geologist might present evidence for subduction. I've read a fair bit of expanding earth literature when arguing with fanatics, and it generally is presented in a very easy way. No discussions of finite frequence tomography to image the mantle (oh man does that confuse me), no detailed geochemistry, nothing on ophiolite suites, accreted terranes. Basically nothing that would make the average person think "wait, what? I'm gonna need to take night classes before I can grasp this".

There's probably very few people who go to the extreme that you're talking about, but it's not too hard for me to envisage how a person could get in to the right position to do so.

I've become quite the armchair scientist lately and have been learning a significant amount about geology in my spare time.

Not because I had an interest in Geology... But rather because I saw the Neal Adam's videos and it demanded that I learn more about science in order to better understand if it is possible or not. I am still undecided after a few months. I have however begun databases to better understand the pacific plate motion in relation to the seamounts and hotspots. I have learned a little about planetary orbits, volcanism, particle physics and just about anything I can get my hands on.

What upsets me and nearly brings me to tears is the disrespect and ignorance I have to tolerate on a near daily basis while in search for knowledge.

I cannot understand why people are so mean and cold when a question is asked or a speculation regarding a theory is brought up. I am computer programmer with over 8 years experience and I have to teach people who are nearly computer illiterate. Even when they feel they have the right answers and I know my answer is the correct one I show tolerance. I don't call then a fool, I don't tell them that they fail, I don't even tell them they are wrong... I simply guide them... although I do run into one or two people who just refuse to come to a compromise...

In general, the majority of my experiences with the the scientific community have been fascist.

I never argue that my version of the theory is absolute. I always ask why rather than demand it be one way over the other. I will admit... when I am backed up against the wall I make the questions rather difficult. Very rarely is somebody willing to come to my level and take the time to teach me. People in the scientific community are only concerned with being correct or more correct at the expense of being informative. This is what breeds ignorance.

Shouldn't that be what challeges everyone in thier career? To be outlandish? To discover and have fun? To learn? To consider...

Anyways...

What do you guys think about the Helium-3 in the earth's volcanoes? Some peope think natural fission reactors might be a source of the earths heat.

I am sorry Stopped listening to you after you referred to my current understanding of science as crackpot for the third time...

Thanks for your info... I would have never have guessed what a scientific paper was...

Look at this... Interesting how in the 1970's people where unaware of the changing length of an earth day...

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/abstract_97425.htm

Here's another interesting article which discusses the Geocentric Axial  Dipole Hypothesis.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16287341

I love this eulerian pole stuff... 

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.G13C..03C

Of course... this is an interesting commentary on Rodina...

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003EAEJA....12382S 

 This is interesting stuff too...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5868/1377

My point proven... The science community is an elistiist bunch with thier noses in the air who speak down to people. Neal Adams is an educator even if he doesn't follow the laws... he encourages... and inspires... That is what drives me... inspiration and discovery... not to prove science wrong...

So you can take you attitude and **** off.. 

Ah, Is this the right room for an argument? (Monty Python for those that don't get the reference)

OK, here is my view, as an academic, but writing in my own personal capacity.

First, can I say how I detest the use of the term 'denier'. The use of this term invoking the holocaust to brand anyone in this way who doesn't share their point of view immediately puts my back up. From Godwin's Law[wikipedia], the first person in an internet discussion to invoke the Nazis has lost the argument.

I'm a skeptic - "a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual." [dictionary.com].

What is it about AGW is that it is presented as fact, not a theory? It is a theory yet it is presented as a belief. This is not the way we do science.

In science, we erect hypothesis, we test them, if they pass they become theories. If they are good, as new data becomes available, they will stand the test of time, if they don't they will be modified or replaced.

AGW is still (IMHO) a theory (maybe still a hypothesis) in its early stages. It is based on proxies and computer models. It is right to be sceptical, it is the way that we conduct science and move scientific knowledge forwards.

I've read the discussions at Real Climate [realclimate.org] and I'm still not *totally*convinced. I have deep reservations about certain issues and I'm not convinced by some of the explanations (or at least think that there could be equally valid alternative explanations). This does not make me a denier, it makes me a scientist. In the quasi-religious metaphor world that pervades global warming belief rhetoric, on a scale of evangelist to atheist, I'm agnostic - meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt [wikipedia].

And on the subject of peer reviewed research, have a look at this [Bishop Hill] (it's long - bare with it).

I'll leave it there as I've only paid for the five minute argument

I told you once.

Fair enough. It was not my intention. I meant it in terms of people who deny straight forward facts, nothing more.

That's might be true for you as all scientists are sceptics - some are more so than others. The people I was referring to in my original post are not sceptics. They flat out deny and their mind cannot be changed - think more creationist. I've seen people refute the fact that humans are putting CO₂ in the atmosphere and the CO₂ helps keep the planet warm...seriously.

Climate change is undoubtedly a hypothesis. We're testing it right now. Come back in 50 years and we'll know the answers I wish I hadn't picked climate change in the original post, to be honest. It's a tricky one. I was in two minds to include it as it is too young to be presented as fact, but yet it is the thing most discussed on the internet fora. I left it in - my mistake.

I skim read it (I will try and read it properly at some point). Again, I wish I hadn't picked climate change as an example. It's too marred with politics to be a good example. There's a fine line between the science and the politics of climate change - ones that's far too fine to be comfortable.

(Rings bell) Good Morning.

I just realized a bit more of how the world views us Americans when you said He/She is probably an American and only went to high school.  While I agree that a lot of Americans have a lot of problems (I think most of them are arrogant and stupid, too), it's still a shot in the arm to hear it.  I at least hope I'm not one of them (I did graduate from a 4 year university and consider myself quite modest).

 I'm with Hypocentre on climate change.  Yes we pump a lot of stuff into the air, but I'm not sure that we can separate effects of that from anything natural.  To further the problem, statistics given can be very misleading, by both sides.  We could say oh, since 1950 the temp has gone up by x degrees.  Well, problem is that there was a post-WWII cold spell, so your result is biased by that.  Or we could say that the temperature has gone down since 1998.  Well, maybe 1998 was a particularly warm year that was hand picked to show a declining temperature.  Nowdays it's gotten so ridiculous that every warm day and hurricane is attributable to global warming.

As for the original argument, I think a lot of people are just close-minded.  They don't want to be proven wrong.  Science has been this way for many many hundreds of years.  Although the motivation for being proven wrong may be different now.  In centuries past it was a religious thing, but these days it seems to be about money.  The more right you are, the more grant money you get.

I think I've walked into 'PhilosphyRocks'! The question 'Why do some people strongly and passionately believe in something that has been demonstrated to be wrong or at least highly unlikely?' is well beyond my expertise...but that doesn't stop me having an opinion!

And that could be part of it for anyone who is not an expert in a given field. We were all taught at school that 'an opinion is never wrong', well, I think that on occasion it is and people should realise that. Frequently in the expert vs non-expert debate (as in the Dawkins programme) the debate is just that, a debate. Both sides discuss verbally (or textually) and, due to the format, neither has an opportunity to present evidence so it inevitably comes down to 'your word against mine' which is impossible to win. A rare exception to this was a link I saw on GeologyRocks to the evidence presented in a court case in the US where a school board wanted to teach creationist science and the parents opposed it. This was well worth a read and should be bookmarked for use in arguments about creationism.

However, even experts are not immune from holding desparately to a crumbling position. To pick one geological example, and a debate still raging, Hot Spots and Mantle Plumes. I spent four years at university being taught about these and the evidence for them and it was all very persuasive: the isotope ratios worked out, the trace plate motion could be seen, they explained large igneous provinces, there was even tentative evidence that they had been imaged by seismic tomography. Then, a few months after graduation the first papers started hitting mainstream journals (and Geoscientist) suggesting that maybe there weren't as many hot spots as previously thought and maybe they didn't even exist! (thank God this articles didn;t come out a few months before the exams). This naturally got the geological community in a bit of a huff, especially as I recall reading vague accusations that the peer reviewed journals had been rejecting these papers as they went against the grain of current thinking. It now appears, as with most things in geology, that the true situation is a compromise between the two extreme beliefs (NB: I've not really been following the evidence and the debate for a couple of years but that seemed to be the way it was heading).

So, I've rambled a bit but the point I've tried to make is that I think it is human to react badly and aggressively when our beliefs are questioned, especially in a debate where no evidence can be presented. I think it ties up in the fact that our beliefs help to define who we are, along with our musical taste, fashion sense, and political views and people react very badly to criticism of these as they are interpreted as criticism of self.