Visit our Popular Forums

valhalla360 · 25-02-2021, 12:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This is not a climate change discussion, but the actual answer from real climate science is that human civilization is a significant driver. It's not a "very small degree." It's a significant degree. And no, it's not out of our control. That's biased dogma you're spouting.

Read the actual climate science.

But again, none of this has anything to do with the behavioural research I was referencing.

This is exactly representative of the dogmatic approach. You have proclaimed the question settled and anyone who does not abide by the dogma is wrong. There is no middle ground or gray area allowed.

Then you follow it up with behavioral research that is skewed by the underlying dogmatic presumptions.

danstanford · 25-02-2021, 13:12

But the biggest blow to journalism has been the near-collapse of the wall that once separated opinion from news. In the no-so-distant past editorial was clearly delineated from news. It had its own section in the paper, or in the broadcast. These days the lines are nearly completely blurred.

Mike, I completely concur and I think our enjoyment of thought provoking editorial is largely over as a result. I spend most of my time reading news and filtering it based on the bias of the source. The other devastating trend arising from the sheer volume of news is the inflammatory nature of headlines and the tendency of many to read the headline alone. Promoting click through is the game today as that is where the revenue from ads is derived. I laughed recently to read a new term, contentainment.

DMF Sailing · 25-02-2021, 13:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by danstanford

But the biggest blow to journalism has been the near-collapse of the wall that once separated opinion from news. In the no-so-distant past editorial was clearly delineated from news. It had its own section in the paper, or in the broadcast. These days the lines are nearly completely blurred.

Mike, I completely concur and I think our enjoyment of thought provoking editorial is largely over as a result. I spend most of my time reading news and filtering it based on the bias of the source. The other devastating trend arising from the sheer volume of news is the inflammatory nature of headlines and the tendency of many to read the headline alone. Promoting click through is the game today as that is where the revenue from ads is derived. I laughed recently to read a new term, contentainment.

Click bait and hot take are four small words responsible for a huge share of harm to quality news reporting

Lake-Effect · 25-02-2021, 13:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by valhalla360

This is exactly representative of the dogmatic approach. You have proclaimed the question settled and anyone who does not abide by the dogma is wrong. There is no middle ground or gray area allowed.

There was a lovely segment from John Oliver I believe, where he first introduced 3 scientists who were skeptical that humans caused climate change. Then he introduced Bill Nye... and 96 other scientists, to show the true landscape of the climate change debate amongst the experts. (ok they were mostly actors on both sides, but the point made is that there ISN'T really much debate amongst the experts about humans causing climate change). So watching a TV discussion with one person for and one person against is itself an overrepresentation of the actual skepticism of the subject matter experts.

The assertion that there is more of a debate, that it's not close to settled amongst the experts... is misinformation; it's unquestionable dogma from the denier* side that the question is still up in the air.

You know very well where the "it's not settled!" messaging comes from, and it's not the scientists. Yet you treat it as unquestionable... aka dogma.

*I apologize for saying "denier". A newer and more accurate word has been coined: "inactivist". This new word more accurately conveys that the point of not accepting the reality of climate change is so that no significant action is taken, no changes made. No carbon tax, no cap and trade, no end to fossil fuel subsidies or SUV/pickup emissions loopholes, no curb on single-use plastics, no major cleanup of abandoned mines and wells... nothing.

valhalla360 · 25-02-2021, 14:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by danstanford

The other devastating trend arising from the sheer volume of news is the inflammatory nature of headlines and the tendency of many to read the headline alone. Promoting click through is the game today as that is where the revenue from ads is derived. I laughed recently to read a new term, contentainment.

Just reading the headlines is not a new issue and really in itself it's not an issue. Particularly in the internet age, no one can read every story in full. There just isn't time.

I recall way back in highschool journalism class, the headline was supposed to grab the readers attention...where things have gone off the rails, is it's not supposed to be misleading or salacious.

It was well understood even back then that most readers won't read every story through to the end. To address this, there was a clear priority in writing "news" stories.
- Headline should give the reader an idea of what the story is about. (so they can decide if they want to read on)
- 1st Paragraph should give the who, what, where, and when. (so they have a basic understanding if they don't have time or inclination to read it all)
- Main body gives the details. (If they are interested, they can get details)
- Anything new at the end of the story should be purely tertiary material (items that are not critical to the story but provide completeness).

Often today, it's flipped.
- Headline: So salacious and wildly misleading, you must read on.
- 1st Paragraph: Give a little more detail on the salacious and misleading aspects to draw you in.
- Main Body: Go on about the salacious and misleading aspects. Often after the first couple paragraphs, it becomes incoherent and poorly written discouraging the reader to continue reading.
- Very End: Inserts a short statement of the facts and a small backpedal on the salacious and misleading info so as not to be liable for false reporting, slander, etc...

valhalla360 · 25-02-2021, 14:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There was a lovely segment from John Oliver I believe, where he first introduced 3 scientists who were skeptical that humans caused climate change. Then he introduced Bill Nye... and 96 other scientists, to show the true landscape of the climate change debate amongst the experts. (ok they were mostly actors on both sides, but the point made is that there ISN'T really much debate amongst the experts about humans causing climate change). So watching a TV discussion with one person for and one person against is itself an overrepresentation of the actual skepticism of the subject matter experts.

So you are getting your scientific information based on a skit on an entertainment show?

Mike OReilly · 25-02-2021, 14:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by valhalla360

This is exactly representative of the dogmatic approach. You have proclaimed the question settled and anyone who does not abide by the dogma is wrong. There is no middle ground or gray area allowed.

Then you follow it up with behavioral research that is skewed by the underlying dogmatic presumptions.

You truly do prove the point of the research.

Lake-Effect · 25-02-2021, 14:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by valhalla360

So you are getting your scientific information based on a skit on an entertainment show?

Way to miss the point

**boatman61** · 25-02-2021, 15:08

So... What has any of this to do with sailing.. its just Mud People crap.

Nikolina · 27-02-2021, 17:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by valhalla360

So you are getting your scientific information based on a skit on an entertainment show?

Brilliant!

Westcliffe01 · 27-02-2021, 17:53

So long as powerful groups work to shut down debate of any kind and resort to name calling - sensible people will be skeptical. The skeptics have not been wrong yet, none of the dire predictions have yet come true. The only thing that is changing is humans expanding their presence in storm and flood prone areas previous deemed unfit for habitation (due to greedy planners who have nothing to lose). Then being "surprised" when a hurricane wipes them out...

Apparently people need to be protected from Darwins law by the government now... As John Wayne said, "life's hard, but its much harder if you are stupid".

geoleo · 27-02-2021, 19:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Agreed but also, much of this depends on definitions (and goals) used by the researchers. In the study quoted:

Most educated would agree that climate changes. That's fairly straightforward to prove.

But when you move into how much is human causes and then even more so in terms of how much impact we can have countering it...the data is far less clear cut. But the study presumes anyone who doesn't stick to the climate change dogma are going against their education and implies they should be stigmatized.

Of course, they lump it all together in the summary, in what appears to be a clear attempt to imply that they don't believe in any form of climate change.

Both sides lie wildly in Climate Change debate.

geoleo · 27-02-2021, 19:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The challenge is teaching to discern the truth vs indoctrinating with the dogmatic "truth".

Most kids just want a good grade and most aren't stupid. If the teacher is an adherent of a particular dogma, they quickly pick it up and learn to repeat it back to the teacher because that makes the teacher happy and results in a better grade. Repeat it often enough and many start to believe it.

While teachers deserve respect, there seems to have developed a cult to teachers and it's considered unacceptable to challenge them or call them out when they are wrong. I think this has moved the profession away from teaching "how to learn" towards rote memorization and that feeds into dogma.

The "dogmatic truth" is the leftist narrative --which is passed along quickly for them to parrot . Kind of sickening to watch it.

geoleo · 27-02-2021, 20:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoleo

Both sides lie wildly in Climate Change debate.

For example /"Sea Level rise" to hear the leftist mantra we will be deluged in 12 years. Yet according to NOAA and the US Geodetic Survey Bench marks---sea levels have risen just 5 3/4 inches in the past 100 years from 1919 to 2019. Which just happens to be the main mass of fossil fuel burning period on planet earth by people since the industrial age began in 1700.