[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Case]

 [Platt]
That's just it, there is no "scientific consensus."

[Case]
I started to compile a list of web based sources on this but figured what is
the use. I know that I am getting older and some of my ideas are a bit more
rigid that I would like. One of the reasons I love reading and writing these
posts is to jar myself out of this condition. But I am starting to think all
that stuff Arlo say about you might be right. If your desire to continue
believing something is so strong that you ignore facts why do you bother? I
truly do like talking to some one who disagrees with me. It sharpens the
thinking process like nothing else. I had a string of chats with Scott
Roberts a few months ago. I never agreed with him about anything but I am
forever in his debt for helping me refine my thoughts. 

You are a great asset to the MoQ discussions because you are so infuriating
but you are at you best when you engage a little bit. This stuff here...
There is no consensus... What does that mean? I don't want to start source
slinging but sheesh. The UN, all of the countries in the western world
except us and the Australians... International science committees, the gang
on Sesame Street... Who is saying there is no consensus? The tobacco lobby?
The board of directors at Exxon? 

If you say there in no consensus that would suggests that half of the
atmospheric scientists say there is a problem and half say there is. Have
you read this somewhere? Was this on the radio? Or is this an inversion of
my favorite Christian refrigerator magnet: Gore said it. I don't believe.
That settles it?

[Platt]
Sorry. I thought you were talking about the environment. I think governments

would necessarily have to lead the way in preventing big rocks from falling
on us, relying on the entrenpreneurs of capitalism to do the job.

[Case]
I was talking about both but how would entrepreneurs turn a buck off
deflecting falling rocks? 

[Case]
> Why would you want to pepper the land with power plants that produce waste
> products that can kill anything that comes near it for the next 40,000
> years? 


[Platt]
Bury the waste or send it into the great beyond.

[Case]
You offering up your backyard for this? Who do you know that wants this
stuff anywhere near them? How is it going to get to the big hole we are
digging for it? On the Interstate? In trains? This is going to make Al
Qaeda's job really easy for them. Blasting it into space? Hmm driving in the
freeway next to me or strapping it to a rocket and shooting it over my head?
I'm not liking any of this.

[Case said:]
> As for refineries, why would you want to encourage continued reliance on
an energy source that is guaranteed to run out soon, is controlled by people
> who hate us and appears to be escalating in cost with no end in sight?


[Platt]
Run out soon. You must be kidding. Who have you been listening to? Oh, what
a second, let me guess. Old fear monger himself.

[Case]
Have you heard of anyone making more of it? It is a fossil fuel. It is
called that cause it takes a really long to form. If we use it up we have to
wait a like forever for more to brew. If there is not more being made then
it is running out. Besides oil of very useful for making roads and plastic
and lots of good stuff why would be want to burn it up? Clearly it is
becoming more scarce. Correct me if I am wrong here but my understanding of
the Theory of Supply and Demand leads me to believe that is why it is
costing more. But who are you listening to?

[Platt]
I can't explain sudden burst of species formation. The mystery is why get
born if it just leads to death? Finally, holes like there's no evidence in
the fossil record of gradualism.

[Case]
It does just that didn't we just talk about Gould? Evolution is not about
Why this stuff happens it is about how it happens. Gradualism? Didn't we
just talk about how evolution is a gradualist theory? Once again there is
almost no disagreement in the scientific community about the major points of
Evolutionary theory and unlike atmospheric science this is a broad theory
that touches every scientific discipline. It is the basis for all scientific
understanding of who we are and how we got here. It is supported by finding
in physics, chemistry, geology, biology, history, anthropology, psychology
even philosophy. The whole of the western intellectual community supports
this theory but you don't like it you don't understand it so you are going
to simply wish it away...

See my comments above.


> [Platt]
> How do you test to see if all crows are black?
> 
> [Case]
> You continue making the statement with confidence until you find one that
is  not. So what?
[Platt]
You call that a test?
[Case]
Yes

> [Case]
> Something can be true by definition. I was providing my understanding of a
> definition. It was a conditional understanding and if you have a better
> definition or an example of such a truth, I am listening but as it stands
I find the idea of Absolute Truth just plain silly.

[Platt]
I guess you think it's silly that you were born. Or that existence exists
and we are here to talk about it.

[Case]
That it is silly that I was born, would be an absurdist position and I have
some sympathy with that. I really don't see what choice existence has but to
exist. What else would it do? Entertaining as this is I am not all that big
on talking sense with the senseless.