Idea: Earthlings for Global Warming

[Korthor]

I just wanted to jump on Dragonmaci's quote, which gets at the root of my problem with some on this forum:

"So because I have no formal training I can't observe things around me such as weather, temperauture, and other things to see if they match the claims of the alarmists and the other side? The answer is, I can regardless of training. I can also attemp0t to integrate what they tell me with other things I know (while I am no expert I know more about science than most people). If no integration is possible I have good grounds to be skeptical or to at least wonder. Furthermore, as I have already said, the warmists ignore many simple fact, some of which I knew before hearing anything from either side. Such as the polar caps have always melted and always will. Their is large quantities of salt in the water. Basic chemistry teaches us that salt lowers the freezing temperature of water. This causes ice to melt. There are bigger facts that this that they omit."

Really? Are you suggesting I should take the temperature outside and that will tell me if there is anthropogenic warming? Maybe after that, I'll rub two sticks together and produce the Internet. Science isn't about a "gut check": non-Euclidian geometry, modern physics, the idea that the Earth goes around the sun... they're all counter-intuitive. Can you "integrate" the computer models "with other things [you] know?" Can you understand the computer models? I know I can't. I doubt climatologists have ignored "basic chemistry," but I'll get back to you after I finish building a rocket to the moon with my erector set. After all, if Billy Bob Thorton can do it, anybody can!

I will reiterate my query: Is there any evidence that climatologists who support anthropogenic warming theory are deliberately lying to us?

When faced with a beached whale, a paniced bystander yelled out "Is anybody here a marine biologist?!" George Castanza answered the call and removed the obstruction from the blowhole of "the mighty fish." You can cite fun factoids to me all you want. I've seen the other sides factoids too. I'll repeat my call, "Is anybody here a climatologist?!"

[DragonMaci]

Ultimately my scepticism about AGW boils down to this: why should I trust the claim of people that blatantly ignore natural causes of warming such as the sun? Why should I trust people that blatantly ignore causes of ice melting such as salt? The answer to both is, I shouldn't.

[Korthor]

To satisfy my own curiosity, I looked up and found articles in popular science journals referring to several articles speculating that the sun could be a cause of warming. Every single one included a caveat by the scientists doing the study that the sun is only part of the explanation. Are there any scientists who claim that the sun is the only explanation for warming?

Also, “basic chemistry” and my own observations tell me that salt will only melt ice if the temperature is sufficiently warm. This past winter, Chicago suburbs had problems with the roads because it got too cold for salt to melt the ice. How's that for a "reason filter"!

To conclude, I did a little research and found some “facts” to put me in line with the 55% of Americans who don’t believe in Evolution. These are just the “facts” to prove the Earth is a few thousand years old; they’ve got a whole different page specific to evolution per se. For brevity’s sake, I’ve just included the bullet points. If you want, you can go to the page for the full scoop. Some of them were silly (i.e., I have enough scientific knowledge to know why there BS); some are less so (I don’t know why they’re wrong). I just thought you should read up on the thinking of your intellectual allies…

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html

1. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

2. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

3. Not enough sodium in the sea.

4. Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.

5. Many strata are too tightly bent.

6. Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'.

7. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years.

8. Helium in the wrong places.

9. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.

10. Agriculture is too recent.

11. History is too short.

Bottom line: there will always be scientists who disagree with the majority view, and intelligent amateurs can always pick up on the reasoning of these "marginalized voices." Until someone admits to being a climatologist, stop pretending to know what you’re talking about!

[DragonMaci]

Of course the sun isn't the only factor, but if you think about it logically a gigantic ball of fire the size of a million Earths is going to be the biggest temperature factor. Look at the fact that solar activity has increased and that Earth isn't the only planet in the solar system experiencing global warming. This points to one and only one thing: the sun is the cause of global warming.

Ice has been melting the polar ice caps for thousands of years!

A few thousand years old? Then how come carbon dating (a reliable technique) has proved things to me tens of millions of years old. There is one word that is a good argument against the few thousand year old thing and I'll use it now: dinosaurs. Fossil records of over 65 million years of age have been found. Are you telling me they are older than Earth? I don't think so.

My intellectual allies? If they think the Earth is that young then they are no allies of mine.

Agriculture too recent? It is thousands of years old! It existed in places like Egypt in 2000BC! Besides Humans have been proven to be over 200,000 years old if you count Neanderthals. Also a few thousand years is not enough for humans to have developed to the level they are at now.

History too short? That is because humans didn't start of civilised. Humans without civilisation can't record history, therefore the "history too short" argument is a poor one. Besides what about the history of the fossil records?

Just because scientists debate right and wrong doesn't mean we can't know right from wrong.

Your arguments are all flawed and irrational so this argument is over. I eventually tire of arguing with such people as it is a waste of my time. I don't waste my time.

[Korthor]

You say my arguments are "flawed and irrational," but how? If anything, you're being "irrational" for ignoring the powerful helium, comet, and magnetic field arguments against evolution. Hah!

But really, you haven't refuted my central claim, which is that non-scientists don't have the expertise to adjudicate scientific controversies. The fact that there is a very strong correlation between political affiliation and belief in global warming amongst the laity supports my theory that people's politics are determining their science. You can pretend you're being rational, but really you just enjoy hating on the environmentalists (not that they don't deserve it). Maybe not... maybe your reading of Rand has provided you with some magical insight into the climate models that have so far eluded me...

Anyway, when you say things like...

"Of course the sun isn't the only factor, but if you think about it logically a gigantic ball of fire the size of a million Earths is going to be the biggest temperature factor. Look at the fact that solar activity has increased and that Earth isn't the only planet in the solar system experiencing global warming. This points to one and only one thing: the sun is the cause of global warming."... I know you're full of it. How is it "logical" that the size of the sun makes it the primary cause of global warming? Is it also logical that you can tell if someone's a witch if they weigh the same as a duck because ducks float and so does wood and wood burns just like witches? Maybe we could also deploy sheep bladders to prevent earthquakes. Science isn't determined by what's "logical," but by the scientific method of theorization and empirical verification. In the case of climatology the tools of theorization and verification are beyond my (and I suspect your) comprehension.

In conclusion, good science is often counter-intuitive, so stop pretending you can "reason out" the truth of difficult scientific controversies without a strong background in the relevant science.

[DragonMaci]

My politics does not determine my science. My science is determined by my epistemology and metaphysics.

"but really you just enjoy hating on the environmentalists"

Wrong. I would actually prefer there was nothing to hate.

How is it logical? Bigger balls of fire = release more heat and solar wind and have more surface area ofr things like sunspots. Logic tells anyone that knows anything about the sun that, scientist or no. So, no I am not "full of it". Besides as I said the other planets in the solar system are experiencing global warming at the same time as us, at the same time as increased solar activity. Do you think that a coincidence? I don't. There is no such thing as coincidences.

Logic is the tool of the scientist! Without logic there can be no reason, without reason there can be no knowledge of reality, without knowledge of reality there can be no science. Any theory not based on logic isn't science.

If a theory blatantly defies reality reason will be able to tell me it is wrong regardless of my not being a scientists. Let's take an example. For example, the quantum mechanic theory that an electron can in two indeterminate states at once until observed. Reason (logical integration of perceptual data) will tell me that reality proves this theory wrong. It doesn't allow for that. I don't need to be a scientist to know that all matter, no matter how small, misy have one determinate state, i.e., a set identity. That is reality. Identity is a matter philosophy handles, so one need not be a scientist to know the Law of Identity disproves the Chaos Theory. And many other irrational "scientific" theories, such as the Many Worlds Interpretation.

Edited March 26, 2007 by DragonMaci

[Korthor]

You claim that "logic" dictates that the sun is the primary if not sole cause of warming. Then why do the scientists who are doing the studies not make the same claim? Does your superior logic somehow give you insight into the universe not accessible to those who rigorously follow the scientific method? The question of the degree to which sun cycles are causing warming is an empirical question for the astronomy or physical sciences department, not the philosophy department.

I don't really know much about quantum mechanics, but I find your statements about the matter simply astounding. If a scientific theory is internally consistent (follows law of identity), has explanatory value, and is empirically verifiable (i.e., there is identity between it and the world), then it's not for armchair philosopher kings to say "It can't be right because I interpret your valid scientific theory to violate some metaphysical premise!" If perceived reality and metaphysical axioms aren't matching up, then either:

A. Your axioms are wrong or

B. You misunderstand how your axioms interact with perceived reality or

C. Perceived reality is wrong

It is probably option B, and certainly we should be highly reluctant to deny perceived reality (i.e., what science tells us). "Logic" seemed to dictate that two parallel lines could never meet, but then nineteenth century mathemeticians discovered non-Euclidian gemoetries. If you had lived back then, you would have doubtlessly denounced this new, irrational science of math. After all, it is for sophmoric philosophers, not mathmeticians, physicists, and climatologists, to pronounce the truth on math, physics, and climate change.

Once again, you have sidestepped my central claim: You don't have the expertise to even have an opinion on the subject, anymore than an amateur who has read a few books on biology can perform heart surgery.

[DragonMaci]

I don't really know much about quantum mechanics, but I find your statements about the matter simply astounding. If a scientific theory is internally consistent (follows law of identity), has explanatory value, and is empirically verifiable (i.e., there is identity between it and the world), then it's not for armchair philosopher kings to say "It can't be right because I interpret your valid scientific theory to violate some metaphysical premise!"

That's the thing, QM isn't consistent and it doesn't follow the law of identity (certainly the inderminate state one doesn't, as inderminate state means "no identity").

A. Your axioms are wrong or

B. You misunderstand how your axioms interact with perceived reality or

C. Perceived reality is wrong

Axioms are never wrong. One's opinions of what axioms are may be wrong, but never axioms. Axioms are the irreducable bedrock upon which all knowledge is built. Knowldege isn;t wrong. Only our views on what is knowledge can be. Saying that B and C are accurate.

Two parallel lines can never meet! If they meet they aren't parallel. Anyone that thinks they can needs to grab a dictionary and check what the word "parallel" means as they don't know what it means. I may not be a science expert but I can tell you now I am a expert on English and the meaning of the word "parallel" makes it impossible for parallel liones to meet.

[Korthor]

Here's Euclid's definition of parallel in his 5th postulate:

For any given line A and point Z, there is exactly one line [we'll call it B] through Z that does not intersect A.

We would describe line "A" as being parallel to line "B." Non-Euclidian geometries don't accept Euclid's 5th postulate. Rather than saying that they believe parallel lines intersect, it would perhaps be more accurate to say that they don't accept 'parallelness' (or that they believe in "ultraparallelness") but at any rate they have line A either curving away (hyperbolic geometry) or towards (eliptical geometry) line B.

Is this illogical? It's certainly been good math for well over a century. I am also an "expert" on the English language, but I don't think this qualifies me to bash non-Euclidian geometry because it violates the axiom of identity. Instead, it is a case of language ("parallel") not adequately describing reality. Might this also be the case for QM?

Edited March 26, 2007 by Korthor

[DragonMaci]

Is this illogical?

Highly. They have some metaphysical and epistempoligical errors. Before one can be good at anything avanced, be it science, maths, or writing, one must come to the right phiolosophical conclusions. One need not be a philosopher, but one must have some vorrect philosophy in one's belief (everyone has some philosophy in their beliefs, good or bad). No amount of 'expertise" will overcome a bad epistemology and bad metaphysics. These will lead to being wrong.

It's certainly been good math for well over a century.

No, it has been bad math for well over a century as it defies reality. In fact it isn't maths. Maths is a science. Science pertains to reality. Any belief that defies reality is bad and not real, it also isn't science or maths.

I am also an "expert" on the English language, but I don't think this qualifies me to bash non-Euclidian geometry because it violates the axiom of identity.

I never used my knowledge of English for that. I used it to bash their lack of understanding the definition of an English word. I used my understanding of the Law of Identity to bash their lack of understanding of it.

Instead, it is a case of language ("parallel") not adequately describing reality.

Ah, but it does. I can see several parallel lines on my lined refill. The word "parallel" accurately describes the reality of them, for they are parallel.

Might this also be the case for QM?

QM defies the Law of Identity. It is based on bad epistemology and bad metaphysics. I could go further into this, but I don't see the point as it won't convince you of anything.

[Korthor]

No, it has been bad math for well over a century as it defies reality. In fact it isn't maths. Maths is a science. Science pertains to reality. Any belief that defies reality is bad and not real, it also isn't science or maths.

Wow! I don't know what to say. You deny the validity of most post-1850 math? That would also imply that you deny twentieth century physics (especially Einstein's theory of relativity), which is based on this geometry? Do you also deny that the Earth is round? After all, the longtitudnal lines that are "parallel" and yet meet (consult your local globe) are an example of ellipical geometry. Wow! Whatever it is you're smoking over there in New Zealand, I definitely want to try it out!

[DragonMaci]

I don;t know Einstein's theory so I have no opinion on it. The only theories I have opinions on are ones I know. You know what you have been preaching? You have been preaching the evil and irrational tenant of, "don't judge" whether you knew it or not. But man needs to judge things he encounters.

I don't deny the Earth is round! Don't be stupid! What I deny is "that there is no parallel lines". Why should I ignore the evidence of what my eyes see in favour of a theory thathas no basis on observation? I shouldn't. Without observation we cannot know reality at all, therefore we cannot have science and maths.

"After all, the longtitudnal lines that are "parallel" and yet meet"

No such thing. Look in your dictionary. You will see that the definiton makes it impossible for parallel lines to me, regardless of what the globes shows. Here I will help you by quoting the best dictionary, The Oxford Dictionary:

• adjective 1 (of lines, planes, or surfaces) side by side and having the same distance continuously between them.

Note: I didn't include the definitions that don't pertain to lines since we are discussing lines.

Anyway, as that definition points out, no parallel lines can meet. Non-parallel ones can, but not parallel ones.

"Wow! Whatever it is you're smoking over there in New Zealand, I definitely want to try it out!"

Nothing. I disaprove of drugs. They dull the brain, the greatest tool of man.

[The Guru Kid]

The Theory of Relativity is based on the fact that parallel lines intersect? Wow, i guess my physics professors must have forgot to mention that.

[DragonMaci]

Furthermore, your claim that parallel line don't exist contradicts your claim that they meet. Contradictions cannot in reality. Not in part, nor in whole. When you see a contradiction check your premises. At least one is wrong. In this case both of your premises is wrong. But parallel lines can;t both exist and meet. Make up your mind. Which is it?

The Theory of Relativity is based on the fact that parallel lines intersect? Wow, i guess my physics professors must have forgot to mention that.

Anyone that thinks parallel lines can meet has no idea what parallel means and need to consult my dictionary. They also need to consult my contrdictions statement as the concept of parallel lines meeting is a contradiction, so at least one of their premises is wrong.

[DavidOdden]

Bottom line: there will always be scientists who disagree with the majority view, and intelligent amateurs can always pick up on the reasoning of these "marginalized voices."

Below the bottom line, though, is the foundational line: the majority view is irrelevant. I'm not a climatologist, but I'm sufficiently informed about the conduct of science and the nature of scientists to be able to recognize the difference between conjecture and scientific proof.

So following up on your question, I wonder if there are climatologists who can at least present their argument coherently here, who feel that they can prove the theory of anthropogenic climate change, and can concretely show that alternative theories have been falsified, in establishing that the alternatives are physically impossible. I'm looking for someone who doesn't just second-handedly say "This has been proven by hundreds of unnamed studies". Decrying global warming is popular, and unfortunately scientists do have a tendency to want to be popular.

I actually don't believe that the majority of man-made global-warmologists are deliberately falsifying data, I think they are simply following the general direction of the greater herd without engaging in critical thinking. Being a cog in the larger machine isn't a totally bad thing, but one should be cautious about accidentally being part of a luddite anti-man machine, without sufficient cause.

[Korthor]

While "parallelness" can describe some aspects of reality, it does a pretty poor job of describing others. Around 1850, Western science realized that the universe was not in fact constituted by intersecting planes (i.e., Euclidian reality), and so the denial of Euclid's 5th postulate did not violate the law of identity. This led to lots of new math and physics which I don't understand... but this proves my overall point. While you and I can trade verbal jabs back and forth about "parallelness" and non-Euclidian geometry, neither of us can produce the math to back it up. But I know people that can, and I don't think they're lying to me. Similarly, neither of us "really" understands the science behind climate change: we just read about the results. Judgements can be made about reality, but only if you have a rational basis for doing so. Making judgements about sophisticated scientific concepts requires a great deal of background knowedge, more than either you or I posses.

I would certainly be interested to hear from a scientist, especially a climatologist, on the issue!

[Korthor]

The Theory of Relativity is based on the fact that parallel lines intersect? Wow, i guess my physics professors must have forgot to mention that.

Doesn't it rely on hyperbolic geometry (i.e., curved space)?

I'm not saying parallel lines don't exist, but rather that there are valid geometries that produce commonly accepted science (e.g., SEinstein's special theory of relatvity) that don't rely on Euclid's 5th postulate (which is the basis for "parallelness").So please put away your dictionaries and open up a math book if you want to continue the debate.

[The Guru Kid]

Okay, i was being sarcastic when i said that.But, parallel lines can never intersect. It's the same argument as having same-sex marriage. It just doesn't make sense to say that. Having said that, i agree with Korthor in the point that sometimes science can be counter-intuitive. But it can never be counter-logic and that is what the other members on the forum are arguing.

Back on topic, the best time to spread the pro Global warming agenda would be during harsh new england winters. When you car gets stuck in -10 degree windchill, you just want to f ing KILL Al Gore for fighting against warming.

[DragonMaci]

Below the bottom line, though, is the foundational line: the majority view is irrelevant. I'm not a climatologist, but I'm sufficiently informed about the conduct of science and the nature of scientists to be able to recognize the difference between conjecture and scientific proof.

So following up on your question, I wonder if there are climatologists who can at least present their argument coherently here, who feel that they can prove the theory of anthropogenic climate change, and can concretely show that alternative theories have been falsified, in establishing that the alternatives are physically impossible. I'm looking for someone who doesn't just second-handedly say "This has been proven by hundreds of unnamed studies". Decrying global warming is popular, and unfortunately scientists do have a tendency to want to be popular.

Well, said David. I agree completely.

I actually don't believe that the majority of man-made global-warmologists are deliberately falsifying data, I think they are simply following the general direction of the greater herd without engaging in critical thinking. Being a cog in the larger machine isn't a totally bad thing, but one should be cautious about accidentally being part of a luddite anti-man machine, without sufficient cause.

Probably, but they are still ignoring a huge ball of fire and salt, among other things. This makes me wary of trusting them.

[DragonMaci]

While "parallelness" can describe some aspects of reality, it does a pretty poor job of describing others.

There is only one world that describes all of reality: objective. No other word, does, so that is a mute point.

Around 1850, Western science realized that the universe was not in fact constituted by intersecting planes (i.e., Euclidian reality), and so the denial of Euclid's 5th postulate did not violate the law of identity.

I am not even sure what that is supposed to mean, but parellel lines do exist and they don't meet. The claim that they don't exist defies the Law of Existence and the claim that they meet defies the Law of Identity. Believing otherwise is a result of bad philosophy. Bad philosophy leads to being wrong. No amount of being a mathmetician or scientist can overcome this.

This led to lots of new math and physics which I don't understand... but this proves my overall point.

No, not really.

While you and I can trade verbal jabs back and forth about "parallelness" and non-Euclidian geometry, neither of us can produce the math to back it up.

I don't need the mathematics to back me up. I just need the sensory evidence and knowledge of the meaning of the word "parallel". I can see the parallel lines on my line refil exist and that they don't meet. I know that the meaning of the word "parellel" forbids them to meet/ Non-parallel lines can meet, but never parellel ones. I just need to know objective reality. The objective reality is that parallel lines exist and that they can't meet, that only non-parallel lines can meet.

But I know people that can, and I don't think they're lying to me.

Probably not, but that doesn't mean they can't be wrong.

Similarly, neither of us "really" understands the science behind climate change: we just read about the results. Judgements can be made about reality, but only if you have a rational basis for doing so. Making judgements about sophisticated scientific concepts requires a great deal of background knowedge, more than either you or I posses.

You have no idea how much I know, so don't suppose to say how much or how little I understand.

You criticised me for evading a question, but know you have just done the same. I told you that believing that there are no parallel lines and that they can meet is a contradiciton and that you had to pick one of them not both. I then asked you which one it is to be, but you evaded the question. You are being a hypocrite and doing the same thing you complained about me of doing. Be consistent and pick one. Which one do you pick?

Okay, i was being sarcastic when i said that.But, parallel lines can never intersect. It's the same argument as having same-sex marriage. It just doesn't make sense to say that. Having said that, i agree with Korthor in the point that sometimes science can be counter-intuitive. But it can never be counter-logic and that is what the other members on the forum are arguing.

Back on topic, the best time to spread the pro Global warming agenda would be during harsh new england winters. When you car gets stuck in -10 degree windchill, you just want to f ing KILL Al Gore for fighting against warming.

Oh, OK, I am sorry.

One blog I read called Al Gore, Al Bore.

[Korthor]

Given your inability to grasp even the most basic synopsis of higher math, I'm skeptical of your understanding of any kind of science. Since you this whole "paralllel' line thing seems to be blowing your mind, I'll try one last time to state what the mathemeticians say.

Euclidian geometry believes in Euclid's 5th Postulate. That's where the concept "parallelness" comes from. Sure you can draw two parallel lines on a piece of paper and look the word up in your dictionary, but the word "paralllel" only has a mathematical meaning as part of a larger geometric system. To claim otherwise is like saying you can know what the word "mutated" meant without understanding its context in genetics. Sure, you can look up the word "mutant" in the dictionary and shoot down the "mutants" that are attacking your house in a post-Apocalyptic war zone, but you don't know what "mutant" means in scientific sense until you understand genetics.

Non-Euclidian geometries don't accept Euclid's 5th postulate. That doesn't mean that there are multiple realities, but that Euclid did a poor job of understanding reality. "Parallelness" only has meaning on a plane. If you don't believe me, draw two parallel lines on a piece of paper. That's a plane. Now bend the paper so that the two parallel lines meet (the same thing happens with longtitudnal lines on a globe). That's why I brought up the point about space not being constituted by intersecitng planes. Einstein's theory of relativity claims that space is curved, which is why it relies on hyperbolic geometry.

This doesn't violate the principle of "identity," but rather indicates that "parallelness" only applies in very limited contexts... i.e., planes. But the universe isn't a plane, so to say that there are other geometries doesn't violate identity or imply multiple realities. I suspect that you won't accept any of this, but this is modern math and physics. Are you saying all modern mathemeticians are wrong? If you can find me one math professor anywhere in the world who denies the validity of non-Euclidian geometries, then I'll fly down to New Zealand and personally lick your nut sack!

Edited March 26, 2007 by Korthor

[Prometheus98876]

Korthor ->

No need to get defensive, just because he are wrong /think he is wrong does not mean you should get annoyed at him.

That is all well and good, but you have failed to disprove anything DM said in his last post....

Parallel lines do not and cannot meet, by definition, and no amount of Eucledian wizardy allows you to evade the meaning of the definition you have chosen without sounding like an idiot and contradiciting yourself. Definitions serve to provide context, a context that must not be thrown out at whim, else your words have no meaning, as you could as well be talking about anything, who is to knwo wiithout a stable context.

No matter how long two parallel lines are, does notg change the fact that they cannot meet, they cannot be parallel and yet converge together at soem point, that is a contradiction, contradictions cannot exist in reality. Redefine parallel and or converge if you want to meet your attempts to prove the unprovable, however they will never meet...oh wait, do you want to redfine meet?

If you do not understand all this maths and physics, then do you understand the proofs that you are claiming here? Or are you trying to indimidate us with a claim of superior knowledge? Are you tyring to use a claim of proof as proof? I can claim I can prove Im a cow, it does not make it so.

if you have this proof, and understand it , present it, however so far I see very little to support the points DM is refuting. an honest man does not hide "proof " when he can give it and when he relies upon it to make his point.

Now stop twisting and turning or shut the hell up and stop watting your time and ours.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Prometheus98876

[DragonMaci]

Given your inability to grasp even the most basic synopsis of higher math, I'm skeptical of your understanding of any kind of science. Since you this whole "paralllel' line thing seems to be blowing your mind, I'll try one last time to state what the mathemeticians say.

Higher? You call a "math" that defies the Law Of Existence, the Law of Identity, and the meaning of the word parallel higher? More like lower. Oh, and I do grasp it. Just because I do not agree does not mean I do not grasp it. It is a logical fallacy to assume just because people do not agree with something they do not understand it. I do not agree with people that there is no existence. Are you going to claim I don't understand the claim that there is no existence? People can understand things and still disagree with them.

Euclidian geometry believes in Euclid's 5th Postulate. That's where the concept "parallelness" comes from. Sure you can draw two parallel lines on a piece of paper and look the word up in your dictionary, but the word "paralllel" only has a mathematical meaning as part of a larger geometric system.

The source is irrelevant. The word was given one definition. To go and change it to something contrary to that meaning defies the purpose of language, which is communication. Communication need objective definitions. Objective definitions need to be stable, not changing to a new meaning that contradicts the previous one.

To claim otherwise is like saying you can know what the word "mutated" meant without understanding its context in genetics.

I never claimed that. My point has been what I said above.

Non-Euclidian geometries don't accept Euclid's 5th postulate.

Then it should of created a new word rather than defying the purpose of language by redefining a word to have a meaning contradictory to the previous one. That is non-objective and so shouldn't be done. One can't just change a word's meaning at a whim and still be objective.

That doesn't mean that there are multiple realities, but that Euclid did a poor job of understanding reality.

Parallel lines under his definition parallel lines cannot meet. Lines that fit his definition can't meet. That is reality. Therefore, he did understand at least a part reality. The Lines on my lined refil will never meet. That is reality. He got that right.

Now bend the paper so that the two parallel lines meet (the same thing happens with longtitudnal lines on a globe).

If the paper is bent they are no longer straight or parallel lines are they? If they meet due to any circumstances, they are not parallel, regradless of why they meet. If they are folded, they are not straight, regardless of the reason. What happens when you fold the paper is you change the lines so they are not straight anymore, so they are not parallel anymore.

But the universe isn't a plane, so to say that there are other geometries doesn't violate identity or imply multiple realities.

I never said it did. I said saying parallel lines meeting defies the Law of Identity. The Identity of parallel lines is that they don't meet. Any lines that meet are not parallel.

I suspect that you won't accept any of this, but this is modern math and physics.

It is sadly. But that doesn't make it right. If you start with bad epistemology and metaphysics, as modern scientists do, then you will always be wrong. They use mysticism rather than reason. No amount of training and degrees will overcome the fact that only reason can tell you the truth and that mysticism will only tell you rubbish.

Furthermore, everything Prometheus98876 said about words is correct. You should pay heed to what he said. And to what I said. I know a lot about language and its purpose due to my study of it, which according to your logic means I must automatically be right regardless of my epistemology. However, you are wrong about that.

Futhermore, Prometheuso8876's other comments are just as valid, especially:

if you have this proof, and understand it , present it, however so far I see very little to support the points DM is refuting. an honest man does not hide "proof " when he can give it and when he relies upon it to make his point.

Now stop twisting and turning or shut the hell up

I have offered proof, i.e., my lined refil's parallel lines not meeting. Where is yours? If you have none, then stop wasting my time and shut the hell up.

Lastly, I notice you still evade the choice of picking one of your contradiciting premises. Why are you so happy to remain in contradiction? Not that I expect an answer to this question or for you to actually pick one of your contradictory premises, even the wrong one.

[Korthor]

I feel annoyed, not defensive. People seem to keep jumping up and down yelling "parallel lines can't meet" over and over again. All I'm saying is that "parallelness" as you understand doesn't exist in non-Euclidian geometry. What does it mean to be "parallel"? The word only has any mathematical meaning in the context of Euclid's 5th postulate, which reads "For any line A and point Z not on line A, there is exactly one line that passes through Z but does not intersect A." Whatever you think you're saying when you say "paralllel," that's what "parallelness" means to a mathematician. Why should I care what a dictionary says? I thought the "consensus" view didn't matter. When talking about mathematical concepts we should use mathematical knowledge rather than typing in "parallel" into dictionary.com.

Hyperbolic geometry, to take an example, substitutes an alternative postulate: "For any infinite straight line A and point Z not on it, there are many other infinitely extending straight lines that pass through Z and which do not intersect A."

Elliptic geometry doesn't believe there is even a single line that passes through point Z but does not intersect line A.

These aren't competing theories (like say evolution v. creationsim), but rather different systems describing different kinds of surfaces. For example, Euclidian geometry describes planes, ellipitic geometry describes how longtitudnal lines operate on the surface of spheres, and hyperbolic geometry describes the curvature of space in Einstein's theories of relativity. Hell there is even a branch of mathematics, topology, that brackets most of these geometric questions entirely.

Once again, the fact that ya'll think you know what "parallelness" without any background in even Classical Euclidian geometry kind of proves my point that amateurs shouldn't be interpreting climate science.

P.S. In case you're confused, non-Euclidians did create a new word, "ultraparallel." They never say "parallel lines meet," but rather offer an alternative postulate to Euclid's 5th. I already clarified that I might have slightly mispoke when I said "parallel lines meet" and have since clarified over and over again what I meant. If someone can point to a single contradiction in non-Euclidian geometry, then they should immediately contact the math world; they'll probably get the Field's Medal given that these maths have been accepted as internally consisten for 150 years.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Korthor

[DragonMaci]

OK, I have had enough of your evasions and idiocy. I will leave this debate with one parting comment: Just because many mathemiticans and scientists say something is true doesn't mean it is true.