justmotteingaround
No bio...
User ID: 2002
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
This still seems like special pleading. Perhaps you can argue/explain to me how its not. As I see it, we can figure out chess, engineer billions of transistors per sq in, manipulate genomes, program LLMs with billions of tokens, perform a million-trillion operations every second. Therefore its not unreasonable to suspect that we can make good climate models.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
As an aside, I still think chess fits. I don't even think we know how many games of chess are possible. Humans recently approximated a Go engine - something people long claimed was too complex to ever be done, much like chess. Models + compute can beat humans at games of unimaginable complexity.
Regardless, even if chess is a bad analogy, admitting that doesn't gets me out special pleading that climate science is not only special in its complexity, but also special in that thousands of people with PhD's, from Montana to Mongolia, overwhelmingly agree that its possible to model climate usefully.
What reason do I have to disbelieve climate science that doesn't also apply to designing bleeding edge microchips, or medicine, or applied physics, or the improvements seen in weather forecasting? I'm trying to argue myself into climate science skepticism inductively and/or by way of inferences. A strong quantitative scientific consensus about cause and effect is usually a good bet. What makes climate science different?
The only thing I can come up with is that climate science is more akin to a year-long weather forecast (ie cannot be computed in P time because well understood chaotic conditions). But then why do such a large amount knowledgeable keep spending money on the practical applicability of climate models? I'm back at special pleading that science is a liar in this case in particular.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
That is trying to understand a really complex system
This is practically a definition for 'science'.
Well, they have a vested interest in it, no?
This is largely true for most fields of science.
the system as such began a long long time ago and we don't know much about that period.
Similarly, this is also true for most of science.
I can't find anything that makes these arguments apply to climate science, but not biology, medicine, chemistry, physics, etc.
Eg. Do we really know bacteria cause disease? Researches have a vested interest in continued research, but the proposed mechanisms are beyond complex, based on biology that began over a billion years ago.
that they at least produce the predicted results
Apparently climate models have been, on average, predictive. But this is not the kind of inductive claim I'm searching for.
weather forecasting as I see it isn't much better than an old man and bad knees.
Apparently, these are accurate 75% of the time inside of 5 days. This would be easy to disprove. Again, not an inductive claim. As an aside, if interested I'd be willing to bet money that weather forecasts are about as accurate as 30 sec. of googling led me to believe they are.
that a myriad of special interest have their hands in all kinds of places
I'm extremely mindful of this regarding climate policy.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
Thanks. I am trying to ignore specifics and make an inductive argument about science in general to shed light on why climate science appears special (ie: most biologist claim that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell, physicists say the universe has a speed limit, meteorologists say 80% chance it'll rain in 3 days etc). Normally, people just go "oh okay". AFAIKT, some 95% of climate scientists are saying "yep, the climate is projected to warm for x and y reasons" and yet many people are have been uniquely skeptical for ~50 years despite increasing consensus among people who have studied the science thousands of hours. I curious what the reason for this is.
Personally, I think the hypothesis is the expected one. Humans have added a trillion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere in 200 years, and its trivial to prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I'd expect something to happen, probably warming, although this need not be the case, and I don't really care either way. All I want to know is what makes climate science uniquely dubious from the highest vantage point, without specifics (mostly for practical reasons).
I haven't followed this much at all. I don't disagree with the points you made, but at a 5 minute glance it seems that the climate models are useful. Even if they weren't, skepticism in the face of an increasing consensus in a quantitative field over decades begs for an explanation.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
Right, but this line of reasoning could be used to dismiss as inaccurate anything sufficiently complex and niche. The human body, the universe, and AI are complex, but people don't dismiss medicine, astrophysics, and LLM's because of complexity. What is special or unique about decades of climate science that gives people pause?
I don't want to put words in peoples mouths. If people think decades of climate science is uniquely dubious because they reckon its just too complex, that's fine. Special pleading is an informal fallacy anyhow. OP found climate science to be nonsense, and the idea of climate modeling to be outlandish, and didn't elaborate. But saying this isn't special pleading by pointing out complexity is a non-starter. It's rare that, for decades, 90+% of trained scientists agree on some domain specific thing in a heavily quantitative field, yet popular sentiment demurs without easily explaining why.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
This could be said in response to innumerable scientific claims. Climate science is plausibly knowable enough to model well. But I'm not making any claims what climate science says. I'm asking what, at a general level, is unique to climate science that garners a special amount of skepticism?
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
We should give climate science whatever veneration it earns. AFAIKT, it has produced results and useful predictions, but this is largely immaterial to what I'm talking about.
If there was Blah Science, researched for decades by tens of thousands of smart people who overwhelmingly agree that X is true, I'd bet on X being true.
My point: most people would bet on X being true in normal circumstances. People seem to make an exception for climate science. I'm curious why people make this exception.
I'm also curious if there are any other broad fields where this pattern holds. Things surrounding nutrition come to mind. Perhaps there are many, and what I'm calling special pleading is quite common.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
The people who say weed is some harmless wonder plant are annoying.
Agreed, but its worth considering that "weed is harmless" is a considerably better approximation of the truth than weeds classification as a schedule 1 nacotric in the US.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
Who thinks this represents either an improvements or degredation of cultural norms? Its pop art that served its utility at the time and might not work today, but it is an interesting cultural time capsul.
-
Neutral. Maybe some people are asexual. I'll never care either way. If its caused by a medical issue, it sould be treated.
-
Improvment. Probably best not to comment on hot kids at work. Calling someone passing and living as a gender the opposite is hugely unprofessional and a dick move.
-
Improvement. Casual racism at work is a terrible idea.
-
Improvement. Similar to above. Sexual innuendo is dubious in the workplace.
-
Neutral. Euphemism treadmill. Tranny was acceptable enough at the time.
-
Improvement. Dont mock peoples inherant differences, especially at work.
-
Neutral. Its neither bad nor good that society is surprised by bisexuality.
-
Improvement. Revenge porn and hacking are serious actions.
-
Improvement. No need to overly bash the beliefs of most of society.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
I didn't make any claim about causality. I'm curious if people think these changes in widely consumed popular media/art represnet an improvement or degredation of cultural mores. Feel free to opine!
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
This is fallacious thinking. Anyone can kill for any ideal, so admiration for the willingness to go that far is a dubious reason to care about such a person or what they wrote. Imagine someone who wrote about and then killed for the preference for waffles over pancakes. Sure, they had the courage of they convictions - which might be inherently admirable to a degree - but its not a good reason to care about them, what they wrote, or their ideas. Jihadists routinely kill for their ideals, and they're full of bunk.
Have they confirmed she is stepping down?
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
many people in our modern world are big proponents of sub-Dunbar level thinking?
For the same reason humans have most of our cognitive blind spots: humans brains spent 99%+ evolving in Dubar-sized environment. Dub Dunbar level thinking is the cognitive status quo. What is amazing is that we have built systems and institutions that - far more often than not - don't employ disastrous rent control policies.
She's had a string of jobs in Cali for the last decade, but twitter says she either posted from Maryland, or her bio says Maryland (I don't use twitter). Weighing that evidence, I'd bet she's a California resident.
Edit: actually on her wiki page it says.
They moved to Silver Spring, Maryland in 2021 when she assumed the presidency of EMILY's List.[17][18] Governor Newsom's office stated Butler would reregister to vote in California before taking office as a senator
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
She's the mirror image of an ideal Republican candidate. Imagine 'Wayne Johnson' from Appalachia, graduate of UWV, who worked his way up at Koch Industries in Texas. Having done a decade of group organizing for gun rights, Johnson was elected President of a major Republican PAC in Nebraska, and is now being appointed as interim Senator from Texas. Makes sense.
Butler is 45, from a poor Mississippi town of 1,800 residents (currently). She graduated college and worked he way up to a solid position at AirBNB, having long taken leadership positions in union organizing, and is now President of a major PAC.
The only cynical thing I see is that skin color was mandatory for the latter candidate.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
Counterpoint: history is largely a one-way conversation of destroying traditions in favor of such progress. Preserving tradition is a balancing act for the more necessary goal of maintaining the the systems and institutions which beget the traditions. Its 60% compromise.
I don't think the Catholic Church is at a point where blessing gay unions is necessary to optimize the institution, but it's clearly now in their Overton window.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
The Church has changed traditions over time in order to maintain itself, increase its robustness, promote antifragility, etc. As an institution, the Catholic Church probably isn't amenable to rapid, radical change. (hence the slow move away from a Latin mass, the gradual lack of condemnation for charging interest on loans (Islam has created a bizarre, less efficient workaround which probably cost them economically), and the explicit condemnation of slavery being late to the party). Dozens more I think, but I know very little about the history of religion.
At some point, it may be optimal for the continuance of the Church to bless gay unions. In a few decades to a few hundred years. But also maybe it will never be optimal. However, imagine a contemporary Church that continued to argue, as I think Acquanias did (and I'm not sure if he was Catholic, but just as an example), that owning people as slaves was fine so long as you treated them well. That would be bad for the institution today. I'm not chiding the Church for being "late to the party". It's the kind of institution that should change slowly, cautiously, and with much debate.
Why its relevant: As I said, I'm pretty ignorant of the history of religion (its by far my worst Jeopardy! category). Therefore, I don't know how democratic religious have fared compared to more top-down structures, and I can't analyze the causal factors in a religions outcomes as institutions (for example, Buddhism and Hinduism are about twice as old as Christianity, but I don't know their institutional structures).
"we must make a fundamental change to [institution] to appeal to more progressive audiences, and grow our membership" scenarios play out in a non-destructive way,
My view is that this debate is the long arc of history: how much progress, and how fast? A balance must be stuck according the function of the institution. The US got rid of slavery, let women vote, allowed for constitutional review by SCOTUS, etc. Perhaps its not as robust as everyone would like, but it has worked out pretty well by historical standards. Companies can change faster than governmental bodies, which can change faster than spiritual institutions. Change too fast, you blow it up. Change too slowly, society moves on.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
Everything is on the table for change, but its not equally wise or good to change any aspect. The US nearly wrecked itself to get rid of slavery. Legal slavery in perpetuity probably wasn't a stable solution, and the US paid dearly to change a fundamental aspect of its operation, deleting the 3/5 compromise and adding new lines to its "code". The Catholic Church moved away from Latin mass because that was probably a sub-optimal configuration. If, in the year 2300, society has determined that being anti gay is as bad as being pro slavery, I'd bet that the Catholic church will bless gay unions, or something similar (its unlikely, but possible). Solutions like "making killing legal to solve murder" are generally unstable solutions to law and order institutions.
Well, just as a quick sanity check, which sects of Christianity are flying the rainbow flag right now?
Oh, I have no idea. I wasn't raised with a religion, and haven't really chosen one.
"progress towards what?"
Kurt Vonnegut would sarcastically argue its to make more plastic. Ellul would argue 'technique' is progressing to separate us from nature for its own ends. Dawkins would argue for the successful propagation of replicators. Steven Pinker would argue its a move towards less violence and loger, healthier lifespans. I'm closest to the latter arguments.
Not all changes are good just because they're changes
Agreed! Chesterton is a very wise part of the conversation. The pride-flying sects are either blowing themselves up, or evolving to a more stable structure. I think the latter, but who knows. The ACLU is blowing itself up imo, but FIRE is filling the void. The reactionary and unwise BLM movement is blowing up racial progress imo, but they seem to be cashing out. There may or may not be some wise findings in the debris (for example, I'm in favor of skepticism to police power, training standards, and attitudes, and I hope these change at the institutional level).
Should Christianity endorse Satan worship, if it increased it's chances for survival? Should progressives endorse white supremacy?
This sounds like should X become not X to survive. Not sure it fits. But say in the rubble of WW3 might progressives become totalitarian to put society back together. Yeah, but they won't claim to be progressives anymore. Have to run, getting increasingly less thoughtful.
justmotteingaround
6mo ago
The hypothetical choices are (doctor/ software engineer/ young educated person with needed skills) vs (native speaker of the primary language). I'd bet more social good come from the former over the latter. One virtually guarantees paying more than their fair share of tax, and their offspring are almost certain to be native speakers, and likely successful as well.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
I fly international a lot. My strategies work for me and I have my typical routes mastered. Timing your sleep/wake cycle on arrival is most important.
Melatonin is great on paper, doesn't seem to do much for me. I time caffeine, cardio, and sleep so I'll be most tired at the local bedtime on the first few nights. (Example: NYC to Switzerland takes off 6pm, so I get up at 3 am in NYC, binge coffee, work, take off 6PM, and I can sleep a few hours on the plane. Arrive 8am, caffeine around 10am and I'm fresh for the whole afternoon. I make sure to to push through to at least 8pm and then pass out for the night.)
Never stay up too late. Plan everything so you're tired as hell for bedtime the first few nights. Try to avoid caffeine after 12pmish the first few days after arrival so you can sleep well later. If you absolutely have to nap, do some math to calculate if you'll be tired that night, and set SEVERAL timers. Otherwise, just push through. Get on a regular schedule. Cardio/loooooong walks are great if you have too much energy and its getting late. You need pass out and sleep well at the normal bedtime for the first few nights!!!
As for the planes themselves, noise cancelling headphones if you got them. I drink at least 1L water every 2 hours minimum. I go to the back and have them refill my airport plastic bottle. Nobody else does this and its crazy. Planes are so dry. A good book or magazine is the best to pass the time. I have a kindle with 100's of books to read or re-read, and I'll put boring ones down in search of something that is great for long trips. Download any potentially interesting podcasts before takeoff. Series are great to binge. (I recommend alphabet boys, especially season 2). I've never had a 7 hour layover. The lounge might be worth it. Going into town might be worth it just to have a mini adventure, but you have to like random stuff like that (ie not find it stressful).
Nice deadlift! At ~23sec I saw your hips come up first. I don't use a belt, but I think I take a deeper breath and expand my stomach more to fill out my leverages, then brace. Perhaps something to play around with. You may want to mix in straps just to put more attention elsewhere (hips, leverages, whatever). Just some ideas.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
I think it's me not pulling the slack out of the bar.
I was thinking something like that too, but I'm no expert. The straps are only to theoretically free up concentration on other body parts, and dial those in.
I usually "sit back" just before initiating the movement. My final cues are "big chest, chin neutral, sit back (this takes the slack out too), drive through the heeeeeeeeels". This keeps my hips low, makes for a better hip hinge for me, while accentuating leg drive. For practice I found that breaking up a set of 5ish into a set of "consecutive singles" to near failure (ie quickly re-set and fully re-cue after each rep) really helped me dial in my form and approach failure. My toes are mostly parallel, but I've been told this can come down to personal preference. Enjoy the trip!
justmotteingaround
4mo ago
Write a post-dated check to an organization you loathe for a sum large enough to sting. Give that check to someone you trust. If you don't weight 'x' with 'y' bodyfat on Jan 1 2025, they mail the check. This is a semi famous commitment device. YMMV.
But when it comes to diet, its really up to you and your habits. There is no end to dieting until your habits keep you at a healthy weight. You might be tempted to crash diet at the end following the above, but its an interesting idea.
justmotteingaround
4mo ago
Small note on happiness surveys. I do they they can be useful in principle. I couldn't get the archived WaPo article to load so I found a 2017 longitudinal Gallup article, with some more granular data.
TLDR: since 1950 roughly 94% of of Americans said they were "very" or "fairly" happy. There was a slump and rebound centered around 1990 +/- 4 years. The final gradual slide to began around 2007, sinking to the 2019 all time low of 86%.
2007/08 seem to be where the interesting things began. People didn't get unhappy everywhere. Basically, post 2007 non-whites became far less happy (-13), HS or lower education (-10), and Democrats/Independents (-6).
justmotteingaround
4mo ago
Well, its sounds like a fairly normal story about burgeoning young(ish) love, which tends to arouse strong emotions. But for the sake of all that is good, somebody needs to point out that you painted a textbook picture of insecurity. This is not a pointed insult, but something you need to face head on. I suspect avoiding this label is part of why it lingers because "general thoughts of inadequacy that make me want to receive constant reassurance that I'm the best she's ever had" is practically the definition of insecurity. But at the end of the day... so what? So you feel insecure that you might not be the best lay your girlfriend ever had, and something about this causes you distress. This is not uncommon, but it is no reason to even entertain the idea of ending an intimate relationship with another human being. It is clearly not a 'her' problem. So maybe you are or maybe you aren't; maybe you will be or maybe you will never be the best sex she's ever had. Date her long enough, love her, and make her feel loved, and you probably will be, but that's besides the point. This is not important in the vast majority of long term relationships. As for solutions, the wisdom that comes with age will eventually dissolve your current concerns, but don't let that stop you from getting wiser faster than the rest. Self therapy, google, and philosophy can certainly help. Best of luck.
One swallow doesn't make a summer. One paper (by a non expert) doesn't invalidate an entire field of experts.
I think looking at proposed answers to climate change is what turns evaluating the climate change hypothesis form a reasoning exercise into an emotional/political endeavour - and it cuts both ways. This is the only way I can explain all the special pleading for climate change as uniquely suspect for decades, despite being a bland, intuitive hypothesis. I think it's helpful set aside looking at proposed answers before thinking about the hypothesis.
We should expect some kind of climate change a-priori. Anything else is nonsense. We've known CO2 is a greenhouse gas since 1859. Very basic. We've known the atmosphere:earth is roughly proportional to apple:apple-skin for a fair bit too. I'd be shocked if adding ~1 quintillion Kg's of CO2 to the atmosphere had precisely no effects. Measuring CO2 in ppm is trivial. Measuring temperature is trivial. Even if climate change isn't human caused, it'd still be worth investigating so we can engineer around it.
This is also a dubious line of thinking (its something like the appeal to ridicule). Chess computers, controlled flight, weather prediction, gene editing, nuclear fission, were all once claimed to be too outlandish to be possible. They still feel outlandish, but all can be done by hobbyists.
More options
Context Copy link