The climate and temperature are complicated systems; much more complicated than most people realize. The idea that CO2 is the primary factor in either of them is questionable. I would be surprised to find a scientist make such a claim, and there are certainly scientists who would dispute such claims (and I'd be happy to link them). — Tzeentch

Here you go: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

Links for further reading are included. I'll also suggest https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change with several further links.

Humanity has coped with a changing climate since its inception. Nothing we do can stop the climate from changing, since it's a natural phenomenon. Whether we like it or not, there will be ice ages, warm-ups, droughts etc. in the future. If that reality hasn't sunk in, we best get used to it sooner rather than later. — Tzeentch

So, how will we adapt to global average temperatures rising by 4 degrees? Any substantive ideas?

- The conclusion that man's Co2 emissions are the primary cause of changes in the Earth's climate and average temperature. — Tzeentch

We have physical models telling us roughly how much of an effect how much CO2 in the atmosphere has. According to these models, CO2 is the primary cause. Do you disagree with the physics?

Other factors have also been conclusively ruled out by studies. What factor was overlooked or wrongly assessed according to you?

The conclusion that man-made climate change causes the end of the world. — Tzeentch

I agree it will not cause the end of the world. It might cause a whole lot of death though. How many lifes are you willing to risk, and to what end?

Be fair; it hasn't caused the end of the world yet. — Banno

But this doesn't matter, does it? If you're saying some prediction is wrong, you must be able to identify just where the prediction fails. If you can't do that, at best you're suffering from cognitive dissonance.

I've already answered those questions. Our views differ on whether it causes the end of the world or not. — Tzeentch

No you haven't. You sidestepped them.

You said:

It's highly questionable whether such a rise in temperature would be caused by man — Tzeentch

If you believe it's questionable, you ought to be able to point out what step in the physical process you think gives rise to the question.

If you can't do that, that suggests that you are either trying to fool us or yourself.

It's highly questionable whether such a rise in temperature would be caused by man, considering the world has been steadily warming up long before man started burning fossil fuels and we are currently living in a cold period in the Earth's history, making a rises in temperature not just likely, but also inevitable. — Tzeentch

So, bringing me back to my three questions:

a) CO2 does not have the physical characteristics that cause it to trap solar radiation in the earth's atmosphere.
b) An increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere does not strengthen the effect.
or c) CO2 concentrations are not increasing?

What do you think isn't happening?

The climate changes both because of natural phenomena and mankind's influence. — Tzeentch

No-one (well maybe a few hardcore denialists) disagrees with that. Do you agree that anthropogenic climate change has a significant impact on the climate, i.e. that it could lead, within a century, to a rise of average temperatures by several degrees?

Anything that further increases the power or even just the credibility of the ruling political class is not desirable. I don't trust them, climate change or not. — alcontali

I think you may have misunderstood. I am not calling for the institution of 20th century communism. I am saying the amount of social mobilization required is equivalent to that of a global economic revolution.

I'm saying there will be no doomsday. — Tzeentch

Because you don't believe there is significant anthropogenic climate change, correct? That's what that comment of yours usually implies.

Are you afraid to state your exact position?

Deny what? Climate change? Only a fool would deny the climate is changing. It has been changing ever since there was a climate on Earth to speak of. — Tzeentch

Right. So to clarify your position, do you think that
a) CO2 does not have the physical characteristics that cause it to trap solar radiation in the earth's atmosphere.
b) An increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere does not strengthen the effect a)
or c) CO2 concentrations are not increasing?

But all this doomsday rhetoric? Pure nonsense. Wasn't the end of the world through rapid climate change already scheduled to happen once in 2008 and then in 2012 as well? — Tzeentch

No, it wasn't. No idea where you got that from.

Exactly this. — Tzeentch

And are you claiming that there are no powerful, wealthy people who'd rather deny climate change if it were real?

For they are the brood of Satan! Scheming to bring about mankind's demise! — Tzeentch

Ah, so your strategy is denial, is it?

The end is nigh! Repent, ye blasphemers, and vote left-wing, lest thou terrible fate may be averted! — Tzeentch

Any opinion on why many right-wing factions deny the very serious danger and refuse to do anything about it?

Massive social mobilization would probably be required. Because of the economic impact of the policies that are now required, we're looking at the equivalent of a global communist revolution.

Social mobilization over the topic is increasing, the question is whether it will increase fast enough.

Otherwise our only hope is practical fusion soon, so we can sequester CO2 back out of the atmosphere.

My question regarding whether gender is a social construct like money is to ask whether hunter-gatherer societies have gender roles and whether this is tied to the individual's biological sex, and if so what sort of exceptions exist. — Marchesk

That would imply hunter-gatherer societies have no social constructs, even though they're already a "society". I don't think that works.

"More information" is the liberal technocrat's fantasy of political motivation. As if we just need one more effort because the last ones worked out so well. Russia, Corruption, Collusion - all these are excuses to not do things, not motivations to begin them. America needs chemotherapy - long, protracted, and painful, and not this deus ex machina nonsense that no one cares about. — StreetlightX

Talking about fantasy, it seems to me just as fantastical that such a "painful therapy" will be adopted until things have really crashed and burned.

An interesting post. It does seem that the notion of gender as purely a social construct doesn't fit properly with the way trans people experience themselves.

The question is, given your notion of a psychological gender, does it make sense to claim that there is a separate "social" gender, or do we have to conclude that viewing gender purely as a social construct is also wrong, since people seem to have a strong psychological association with a gender that cannot be adequately explained as merely an internalized social role.

You cannot divorce gender from sex; but you can "not conform" to sex roles (e.g. not giving birth, not breast feeding, no reproducing, etc). — Swan

Actually, you can do that very easily. Just define gender as something unrelated to sex.

P1: All males and females must contain all the necessary biological attributes to be 'male' and female'.
P2: All 'males' and 'females' contain the necessary biological attributes needed "to be" 'male' and female'.
P3: A male that lacks necessary attributes necessary for to be considered 'female' is not a female.
P4: A female that contains both necessary attributes of both 'female' and 'male' is neither male or female, but intersex. QED. — Swan

This looks like gibberish to me. Why do you use the same terms, but sometimes with and sometimes without quotation marks? Why is "to be" in quotation marks in the second premise? Why are there only premises, but no conclusion?

Ah. Wouldn't you normally just assume that "my valuings" is "my (moral) valuings," but where "moral" isn't repeated because that should be clear from context?

I would rather be surprised to learn that someone who wrote that sentence was thinking of "my valuings" in a literal, context-independent way, to refer to every single thing they value, moral or not. — Terrapin Station

One would, but if one does that, the argument no longer works as well, because then Premise 2 becomes:
"My moral valuings are not necessarily moral values", something which I think you wouldn't accept without justification.

Do you mean just because of "my"?

I read "If moral valuings and my valuings are one and the same" to amount to "If moral valuings and the valuings of subjects are one and the same." I know that "literally" it's not the same, but I don't figure that anyone is going to literally equate all moral valuings with only their own valuings, unless they're also a solipsist, which is unlikely. So I figure that "my" is a way to say "one's," with a connotation that we're talking about every one. — Terrapin Station

The issue here is with the identity of moral values and values in general. If they are "one and the same", every member of the set "my valuings" is also a member of the set "moral valuings". But that would be an absurd claim.

This all came out of an attempt to right the argument, because in it's original form, without the added stipulation that they are "one and the same", i.e. the sets are identical, the argument is invalid.

I don't need my rational intuitions checked by you. That's like an ethics review from Bill Cosby. — Bartricks

That's fine. By now, the quality of your arguments is obvious to any reasonably intelligent reader either way.

Because they have the same meaning. I assume basic comprehension skills on the part of others. They all mean exactly the same thing. — Bartricks

So the two sentences "mammals are animals" and "mammals are one and the same as animals" mean the same thing?

Like I say, I am no longer willing to argue with someone who thinks that premise 1 is false or that the argument is invalid, because that's just not going to be worth any of my time or theirs, is it? — Bartricks

If you are unwilling to have your rational intuitions checked, then why post in the first place?

Then why use different words? What use is the conclusion that "moral values are not one and the same as my values"?

As I have explained numerous times, it is valid. — Bartricks

Not in the form you posted it again.

Premise 1 says that if moral valuings and my valuings are one and the same. — Bartricks

It doesn't say that. It says:

if I am the subject whose valuings constitute moral valuings — Bartricks

Not the same words and not the same meaning.

If it said: "if moral valuings and my valuings are one and the same."

Then it would be pointless, because that doesn't describe any subjectivist position. It's clearly nonsense to claim that "moral valuings and my valuings are one and the same".

Impeachment should really be seen as the worst possible option, the one that would do the most lasting damage to political life in the US, and not the magic happy celebratory bullet that certain opponents of Trump tend to think it is. — StreetlightX

I get the sentiment. The focus on the Mueller investigation as America's saving grace has been annoying, and so is the constant attention to Trump's provocations, drowning out everything else. Nevertheless, the rules must be upheld.

If such a child existed, their parent(s) would have the right to act on behalf of the child and it would, therefore, be “permissible” for them to kill that child. — Ferzeo

Not necessarily. Parents don't have unlimited rights to act on behalf of their children. Or they don't need to have such rights, in any event.

I am not saying that people never have the right to dignity in death, but that the infringement of their dignity in life does not qualify them to prematurely take their right to dignity in death. — Ferzeo

By adding the word "prematurely", you're already making a value judgement. Under what circumstances do you consider suicide to be "premature"?

What I find odd about the argument in general is that it seems to assume that suicide is not "permissible" in general, so we need to establish an exception. This would imply suicide is immoral. There are arguments to this effect, I am familiar with Kant's, for example. But it doesn't seem to be a very widely held view nowadays.

So? Philosophy isn't diplomacy and the truth isn't democratic. — Bartricks

But since there are a number of fairly intelligent and well read members on this forum, their opinions should have weight to you. Especially since you agree that one should consult others to test whether one's reason is "corrupted".

1. if I am the subject whose valuings constitute moral valuings, then if I value something, necessarily it is morally valuable
2. If I value something it is not necessarily morally valuable
3. Therefore I am not the subject whose valuings constitute moral valuings.

That argument works for you too and, I suspect, all other human subjects. And once more, Reason says not jus that the argument is valid, but that it is sound - that its premises are true. — Bartricks

As has been pointed out multiple times, this argument isn't valid, and premise 1 is obviously false.

Of course I am not saying there should be no inquiry to establish whether there are grounds for impeachment, but let's wait to see what the findings are before rushing to ill-considered conclusions. — Janus

I'd say the above quotes from the Mueller report pretty clearly indicate that Trump would have been indicted for obstruction of justice if it hadn't been for DOJ guidelines forbidding such an indictment. That's not an ill-considered conclusion in my book.

Nor do I think it's ill-considered to conclude that Trump tried to pressure Zelensky for political purposes. That's also pretty damning, regardless of the criminality.

I don't think a democracy can allow a president to do either of these things without serious damage to it's institutions. Do you disagree with that?

Couldn't agree more. While I've no doubt that Trump is dirty in multiple ways, the insistent calls for impeachment are just shitty politics. It's relying on a deus ex machina to try and address serious social, political and institutional problems that would be far better served by coalition building, policy overhaul, and the hard fucking work of building a political vision for the future. Impeachment is anti-poltical in the extreme, a blunt tool with high-vis spectacle value that ensures that things can continue the way they are without having to address big, structural issues at the heart of what's going on in the States. — StreetlightX

While you're correct about impeachment doing nothing for the underlying social and political problems, there is an institutional dimension to impeachment. The institution of congressional oversight is at risk if administrations continuously expand executive privilege and don't comply with their legal obligations to turn over materials.

This trend needs to be stopped if the instructions are to survive. And impeachment seems to be one of the only tools that actually has bite.

I'll quote Mueller: — NOS4A2

And I just quoted the relevant section of the justice manual. It says that in order to commence prosecution, the prosecutor must "believe" that the persons conduct constitutes a federal crime. Mueller declined to make that assessment and thus declined to prosecute. Nothing in that section, or in any other section as far as I can see, obliges him to nevertheless state his beliefs.

I started another thread on this so called "doomsday argument" a while back. We weren't able to reach a definitive conclusion, but there seems to be an issue in applying the Copernican principle to self-sorting problems.

In the context of the prime principle of confirmation, this would mean either that the principle has an exception for self-sorting problems or that the probability must be assessed differently.

Following his example, If our existence in the now is reason to believe our race is near its end, wouldn’t it be just as surprising that we find ourselves living as/in one of the last populations to exist? Wouldn’t it be far less surprising to say we aren’t one of the last populations to exist? — PhilosophyAttempter

In the traditional form of the argument, it asserts that we are most likely not in the first 5 or 10% and that therefore, there will probably only be a couple more generations. This would be sound reasoning for a normal sorting problem, like guessing how many cars of a given type have been produced based on a single serial number.

Furthering, it is arguable to state that any existence on the timeline of population isn’t surprising. Take a scenario of throwing a dart as an example. With a handful of darts, you throw them all aimlessly on the board, they each land in various spots. Would you say “ah, that is surprising that those darts landed exactly in the spot that they did?” I would argue that you wouldn’t. Thus, you wouldn’t say “ah, it is so surprising that I was born in 1995 as opposed to 2011 or 1870.” — PhilosophyAttempter

Essentially, what we're doing is looking at a single dart and trying to decide how many darts have been thrown.

Barr’s objection was that Mueller could have, and in fact was obligated to do so, make a decision whether a crime was committed, to assess whether a person’s conduct was a federal offense. — NOS4A2

I actually checked the justice manual, and could find no support for this view.

The section that Mueller refers to in his report reads:

The attorney for the government should commence or recommend federal prosecution if he/she believes that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, unless (1) the prosecution would serve no substantial federal interest; (2) the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or (3) there exists an adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution.

In light of this, Mueller's statement clearly refers to the decision to "commence or recommend federal prosecution". Not to some more general "judgement".

So, given the above, Barr did not "contradict" anything. Barr merely stated an opinion that doesn't seem to have any basis in the justice manual standard.

Your position is that slavery has caused modern day whites to be disproportionately privileged, yet you acknowledge you have no proof of that and can cite nothing in support of that. — Hanover

Except the things I wrote. You're welcome to point out any factual or other errors you happen to spot. I am not keeping you from using Google yourself, am I?

Next time just save us the time and tell us you have a baseless opinion that you're too busy to confirm or deny. — Hanover

A bit melodramatic, don't you think? I participating in a forum discussion, not running a political campaign.

Google. — Hanover

The effort wouldn't be commensurate with my investment in the topic.

No, completely false. Your criticisms have been poor. You have gone to great lengths to try and show that my argument is invalid. You failed. The argument is valid. — Bartricks

Unfortunately, you are the only one here who thinks so.

If you want to know if an argument is valid, you consult your reason and the reason of others, yes? And what is an argument apart from a prescription of reason? So, that is an example of us using our reason to confirm what our reason says. — Bartricks

Good point. I concede that reason self-checks when we are crafting an argument in our minds. But, crucially, this process is open to the reason of other people, who can run it in their minds and tell us their conclusions. That's what differentiates an argument from intuition. I can transmit the argument to someone else, but not the intuition.

Since your position is that our faculties of reason merely access a metaphysical entity that embodies reason itself, it's all merely a self-check. But I think there are alternatives that don't require us to establish reason as a separate subject.

You do not understand the burden of proof sir. — DingoJones

A pet peeve of mine, but "burden of proof" is a legal concept designed to solve situations of non liquet. It's not a general epistemological principle. Neither is the notion of a "null hypothesis".

So, what you are now admitting is that the argument establishes - proves - that moral values are not the values of any one of us. — Bartricks

I didn't actually admit that. I only admitted that moral values are not identical to the entire set of values of any one of us. Because, obviously, the entire set of values contains things like "I like cats more than dogs", which don't have anything to do with morality.

Yes, moral intuitions - a subset of our rational intuitions - are 'about' morality, but they are not morality itself. Just as I cannot make an act right - not of necessity, anyway - by just ordering myself to do it, or make it valuable - not of necessity anyway - by valuing it, likewise I cannot make an act right or good by simply having the rational intuition that it is. — Bartricks

How do we know that? My rational intuition tells me that logic is itself a rational intuition. The rational intuition doesn't tell us something about some logic "object", these rational intuitions are logic itself.

So the same could be true for moral intuitions.

This simply does not follow. If you allow - and you must on pain of being unable to argue for anything at all - that rational intuitions have probative force, then we do - absolutely do - have a way to test rational intuition. Rational intuitions! — Bartricks

How can something test itself? I allow there are basic principles, logic itself, which can not themselves be subjected to reasoning. Because, essentially, they are reasoning itself. Anything beyond that doesn't enjoy the same necessity though, so I don't see why I must accept all manner of so-called intuitions.

Others may dislike the conclusion, but disliking something is not evidence it is false. Those who wish rationally to reject its conclusion must find something else reason seems to say that contradicts what this argument entails.

And that is precisely what I have done - there do indeed seem to be some other things that reason seems to say that, in combination with other things she seems to say, contradict the conclusion of the above argument. — Bartricks

The problem is that you seen impervious to criticism of either the form of your arguments or the content of their premises. You are unwilling to subject your arguments to the reasoning of other people, claiming instead that their premises are given by unchallengeable rational intuition. That's not convincing, and the way this thread has devolved should be ample evidence of that.

Why do you hold a position that there's insufficient evidence of? — Hanover

I don't believe there is insufficient evidence for it. I just don't have sufficient rigorous and presentable evidence. I am not a sociologist and have no easy access to the relevant literature.

There are loads of things I believe without any sort of rigourous evidence. All manner of basic knowledge about biology, chemistry and physics that's based either on things I heard in school, or things I saw in a documentary. My beliefs about the character and beliefs of my friends isn't based on much more than anecdotal evidence.

So, is there such a thing as a general epistemic "null hypothesis" according to you?

If that's the literal claim then how was I taking it "unreasonably literally"? — Terrapin Station

By ignoring what happened after slavery ended, even though it was a continuation of racist policy.

When we're talking about something with so many variables and a 150+ year separation, yes. — Terrapin Station

Fair enough. I don't have sufficient evidence on hand to convince you otherwise.

Maybe i’m Understanding it wrong. I always thought white privilege was the unearned privilege afforded to white people in general. — NOS4A2

The qualifier "in general" can be used in a way that allows exceptions. But I am sure there are people who argue that all white people are privileged due to various deep-seated prejudices and similar factors. I think it's too difficult to assess the actual effect of such factors to make strong statements.

In my view, when we're doing philosophy, we need to make literal claims, especially if it's something that's supposed to be important, supposed to have a lot of significance. So what would the literal claim be? — Terrapin Station

That it's connected to slavery and the openly racist ideas and policies that preceded and followed it.

That sounds like you're talking about something historical primarily. If we're trying to connect something about slavery to something about conditions at present, I think it's going to be more or less impossible. — Terrapin Station

You think it's impossible to establish a causal connection between past and present?

Would you say white people universally have white privilege? — NOS4A2

No, I wouldn't say that. It seems evident that there are white people that are not priviledged, at least not in any significant way.

There weren't slaves in the US 60 years ago.

The claim was that it's connected to slavery. — Terrapin Station

You're taking the claim unreasonably literally.

In any event, it is connected to slavery. For one, racial segregation was an outgrowth of slavery, the next best thing when slavery was no longer possible. For another, to assess the impact of slavery on the current state of affairs, we still need to look at what happened after the emancipation. And it turns out the former slaves were not allowed an even footing even then.

Privilege is bestowed, given. There certainly are people who would privilege others because of skin color, and they should be called out for doing so, but the receiver cannot be blamed for being a part of the privilege transaction unless he is aware of it and is in agreement with it. He is not a participant in white privilege, willingly or otherwise. Neither is he born with privilege. — NOS4A2

I didn't say white people are somehow universally to blame for there being white privilege.

I thought it was power that made them privileged. — NOS4A2

That's not a contradiction.

That seems like it would be almost impossible to establish. There are so many variables at play, and we'd be trying to connect current data with a situation that ended 150 years ago. — Terrapin Station

The situation didn't end 150 years ago (if we are talking about the US). It ended perhaps 60 years ago, at best. Until that point, there was still plenty of open discrimination, especially in the southern states. In certain areas, like housing, it went on even longer.

But it would certainly be difficult to establish any specific numbers. It seems like a fairly reasonable assumption that there hasn't been enough time to catch up though.

Then the “white” in “white privilege” is superfluous. — NOS4A2

As superflous as any descriptor. "White privilege" is "white" because, historically, white people were indeed better off because of their skin color.

Oh, is it obvious? Is this an acceptable argument?

When white people start telling me how better off they are by nature of their skin color I become immediately suspicious. So be my guest, argue how some people, by virtue of their skin color, are better off than others. — NOS4A2

I don't need to argue that, because that's not the argument. The argument is that some people are better off by virtue of having been in power in the past.

I don't know what you mean by 'rational knowledge'. But a rational intuition is another name for a representation of the faculty of reason. — Bartricks

Essentially, I'd consider everything that can be derived from synthetic a priori conclusion knowledge. Descartes "I think, therefore I am" would be an example, if it were entirely correct.

Well, how do we know it is valid? We don't see it with our eyes, or smell it, or taste it, or hear it, or feel it. Validity doesn't have an appearance, smell, taste, sound or texture.

So how do we know it? Well, because our reason represents it to be valid - that is our reason effectively tells us that if assumption 1 is true, and assumption 2 is true, then 3 must be true.

I don't decide it is valid and that makes it so. I don't believe it is valid and that makes it so (though I do believe it is valid, but it is not my believing it that makes it so). — Bartricks

Ok, that sounds convincing. There is no way to "reason" the validity of logic itself, so it makes sense to call it an intuition.

It is via our rational intuitions that we are aware of morality. I mean, morality is not something that our senses give us insight into. That's why it is not studied by the empirical sciences. It is not an object of sense. But we - most of us - are aware of moral norms and values. And our fundamental source of insight into moral matters is our reason. — Bartricks

Right. I agree with the reason bit, but I think what makes moral stances a unique is that they are not just intuitions, which you can only assert, but are reasoned from principles. You can make arguments for and against them, so they aren't just intuitions.

But a rooky mistake in this area is to confuse rational intuitions - especially those that have moral representative contents (so, moral intuitions) - with that of which they give us an awareness. That is, to confuse the intuition that X is wrong, with its wrongness. A mistake that leads many quickly and confidently to conclude that morality is made of their own subjective states - and due to the staggering arrogance and ignorance that infects most people they will then never, ever, ever, change their position. — Bartricks

But, if it's the case that moral stances are arrived at via rational intuition, and intuition is not constitutive but rather descriptive, what would moral philosophy consists of? It seems to me getting the right answers would merely be a matter of having the right intuitions, no arguments required.

And if there are no arguments required, there is no way to test the rational intuition. There is no way to know, under this system, whether you actually have a rational intuition or just imagine it being so.