Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

June 24, 2015, 4:05 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

You are bordering on the disingenuous, Steven. You have said that your comment related to Pascals comment is in agreement with his:

““People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.” – Blaise Pascal”

Here what I said

“This is why skeptics will not be convinced until they do their own damn science.”

Plainly, it is not in agreement. And it’s not because you are going from general to specific. Pascal said one thing, you are saying another. Period. If it was your intention to bastardize Pascal’s statement to suit your purposes, you should have stated that up front. Your statement does not agree with Pascal’s statement. You know that. If you want your statement to be in agreement with Pascal’s, it has to read something like this:

“This is why skeptics will be better persuaded, if they do their own damn science.”

That’s it. You can’t weasel out of it.

---

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Steven Mosher

June 24, 2015, 4:06 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Willard

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

$

0

0

the argument is NOT

If they do science, they will be persuaded.

The argument is

If they dont do science, they wont be persuaded.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Willard

June 24, 2015, 4:07 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by matthewrmarler

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

>If we use willard’s logic

What logic would that be, TimmyG?

Must be a persuasion thing:

Fox News’ immediate response to the deadly shooting at a black Charleston church was to repeatedly push the prospect that the massacre was a religious hate crime, rather than a racially motivated one.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/19/foxs-scramble-to-make-the-charleston-shooting-a/204071

Cue to Don Don’s “but Muslims”.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by matthewrmarler

June 24, 2015, 4:07 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Willard

$

0

0

Steven Mosher: <i>“People are only persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered.”</i> Steven Mosher: <i> ““People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.” – Blaise Pascal” </i> Steven Mosher: <i> “This is why skeptics will not be convinced until they do their own damn science.”</i> You turned "people" into "skeptics", and an ordinal relation into a sine qua non. You did those without any justification, and declared all questions irrelevant.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Steven Mosher

June 24, 2015, 4:08 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by matthewrmarler

$

0

0

perfect.

He borrows part of Pascal’s observation about people and persuasion to explain what he thinks it will take to persuade science-capable skeptics.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

June 24, 2015, 4:09 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

How did you sneak in there, joshie? Learn a new troll trick? Still the same old lame BS.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

June 24, 2015, 4:11 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

$

0

0

Thanks, willy. We have all been wondering how the mediamatters left-loon clowns would spin it.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Steven Mosher

June 24, 2015, 4:13 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

$

0

0

Dearest Richard

“I) could be convinced if scientists could read the (IPCC) reports and make assessments on some of the details.

“In that comment I was only saying that this skeptic could, yes, be convinced if the IPCC reports contained information as to how it reached its conclusions. I did read AR5 Chapter 10 and did read Hegerl et al (1996); according to SoD (who is a scientist). the Hegerl paper is central to the IPCC attribution chapters, AR3 -AR5.”

No,

in comment 1. you said you’d be convinced if “scientists” couild read the IPCC and ‘make assessments”

in comment 2: you said you’d be convinced by a report that contained information how it reached its conclusions. I read that chapter. it did contain information how it reached its conclusions.

---

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Steven Mosher

June 24, 2015, 4:17 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

Dearest Richard

‘SoD tells us that after reading AR 5 Ch 10, the pertinent references, and references within references, he could not determine how it was concluded how the attribution group concluded it very likely that >50% of global warming is attributed to AGW?

As I recall a major stumbling block was a recognition of by the attribution group of huge uncertainIty related to internal variability, but no discussion on the subject. SoD, at one point, talked to one of the attribution experts and was told to look at chapter 9, the modeling chapter. I looked at the chapter and found no discussion on internal variability, only a figure with a title similar to “pseudo model of internal variability”. The model was essentially a flat zero across the horizontal axis (probably representing time, but don’t know for sure).”

1. you relied on Hearsay.

no cookie for you.

What you have shown is exactly what I claim.

you wont change your mind by simply reading documents.
because there are ALWAYS ambiguities in documents.
And because DOING THE SCIENCE FOR YOURSELF is too damn
hard.

So you picked the easy route.
You made it even easier by letting SOD do the dirty work of talking to authors.

you put in no effort to make your own discovery even in the pedestrian task of reading literature.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

June 24, 2015, 4:17 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by matthewrmarler

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

You mangled and misused Pascal’s words, Steven. Your story is evolving with the help of newly acquired bird of a feather. A parrot. You better get that Stockholm syndrome thing checked out, Steven.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by matthewrmarler

June 24, 2015, 4:17 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

$

0

0

Steven Mosher: They wont be convinced by reading other peoples discoveries.

That goes beyond Pascal, who only stated an ordinal relation. In that sentence, you have denied the way that most people in this debate have become convinced about anything. Well, maybe not “most people”, what with “An Inconvenient Truth”, gossip, political speeches and other non-reading. But some people, or at least 1 person.

You have left out what skepticism you are addressing, and what anybody might become convinced of. So you have a strident aphorism about nobody and nothing.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

June 24, 2015, 4:23 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by matthewrmarler

$

0

0

Steven, Steven

“The argument is

If they dont do science, they wont be persuaded.”

Ridiculous argument. This had gone way too far.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

June 24, 2015, 4:31 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by nickels

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

$

0

0

Matt, maybe Steven is claiming that climate skeptics are a special brand of utter nitwits that Pascal didn’t know about. They can ONLY be convinced by doing their own damn science. How these cretins could possibly do science will soon be revealed by Mosher and his parrot.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by nickels

June 24, 2015, 4:32 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by jacksmith4tx

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

$

0

0

RiH

Retead your original post. The quote from Franklin is so refreshing and true the spirit of science and knowledge. I dont know if I will ever be able to read enough western wisdom to clear the foul taste of Rules from my brain.

Also related to shaming:
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by jacksmith4tx

June 24, 2015, 4:38 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Willard

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by nickels

$

0

0

“The Warmist tactic of threatening the gullible with vague and undefinable threats…, Luckily, they are running out of threats”

And your side is running out of financially solvent coal miners.
Peabody Energy (BTU) $2.48
Arch Coal Inc. (ACI) $0.39
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. (ANR) $0.35

This is not a threat – News item 6/24/2015: California’s state pension funds Calpers and CalSTRS are going to sell their investments in companies that generate at least half their revenue from coal mining passed an Assembly committee by a vote of 5-1 on Wednesday. Pension funds are under pressure from activists to halt investing in fossil fuel for environmental reasons and the vote could increase the momentum for other funds to sell such assets as this has become a hot-button issue both domestically and internationally. Norway’s parliament voted earlier in June to reduce coal investments by its $880 billion sovereign wealth fund. In the United States, Stanford University and the University of Maine have made similar moves.

You want threats? In 2013, U.S. electric utilities had 51,924,502 advanced (smart) metering infrastructure (AMI) installations. About 89% were residential customer installations. I have a smart meter and maybe you do too. Did you know smart meters can be disconnected from the grid with a simple software command? It’s even easier than breaking into Govt. computers and stealing emails I bet.

---

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Willard

June 24, 2015, 4:43 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by jacksmith4tx

$

0

0

After reading these two Brainpickings essays, does calling your opposition ‘left-loon clowns’ sound like a good persuasion strategy, Don Don?

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

June 24, 2015, 4:45 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Willard

$

0

0

You are confused again, Steven. I didn’t say that what you said is trivially true. I was commenting on what your parrot said you said:

“He’s not saying anybody has to do their own damn science.”

We know that. So freaking what?

What you said is that your statement agreed with Pascal’s. That is obviously not true.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

June 24, 2015, 5:06 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Willard

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

$

0

0

It’s really dry around here, willy. Probably the CO2 induced drought of the millennium. When it’s like this those water bugs that look like big roaches sometimes wander from the countryside into the garage looking for a drink, some food, a nice cool place to relax, whatever. We have had coyotes and mountain lions in the neighborhood. My wife is more afraid of the bugs and she hollers for me when she sees one. I go out and squash it. I don’t even attempt to persuade it to leave. No namby pamby navel gazing on Mr. Monfort’s property.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Willard

June 24, 2015, 5:07 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Willard

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

$

0

0

No more handwaving to the IAC report, Richards?

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Willard

June 24, 2015, 5:16 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Willard

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Willard

$

0

0

> climate skeptics are a special brand of utter nitwits that Pascal didn’t know about

Not at all:

The Jesuit seemed to be confounded more with the passage from Aristotle, I thought, than that from St. Augustine; but while he was thinking on what he could reply, a messenger came to inform him that Madame la Marechale of — and Madame the Marchioness of — requested his attendance. So, taking a hasty leave of us, he said: “I shall speak about it to our fathers. They will find an answer to it, I warrant you; we have got some long heads among us.”

We understood him perfectly well; and, on our being left alone, I expressed to my friend my astonishment at the subversion which this doctrine threatened to the whole system of morals. To this he replied that he was quite astonished at my astonishment. “Are you not yet aware,” he said, “that they have gone to far greater excess in morals than in any other matter?” He gave me some strange illustrations of this, promising me more at some future time. The information which I may receive on this point will, I hope, furnish the topic of my next communication. I am, &c.

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/pascal/blaise/p27pr/part5.html

INTEGRITY ™ – We Exceed in Morals