I just flipped through that very quickly and one of the questions caught my attention:
I probably wouldn’t have said yes to anything and would have been one of the people listed as not watching any news. But going through the survey questions (and being honest with myself) I’d probably get about half of them right. Clearly I’m picking up my information somewhere. I mean, if I just sat in a sensory deprivation box all day I wouldn’t be able to answer any of them. I suppose I get a few tidbits from whatever random (local) news channel happens to be on in the background, a little from Yahoo* and the rest probably comes from here, but I don’t go out of my way to watch the news, I don’t make a point of checking out news websites, I really don’t purposely do anything to acquire my knowledge of the world around me but it seems unfair to group me in with people that seem to magically attain the political news from the ether…unless of course they’re specifically talking about people that don’t watch news on TV. I suppose I could be grouped in with those people. When I do watch the news on TV, it’s just the local stuff.
*As much as I hate Yahoo! I keep it as my home page at work so that each time I fire up my browser I get a few random local/US/world headlines…then I go over to Google.
I wonder if Obama isn’t re-elected if Fox news will go out of business;most of their news is criticism of what ever Obama does or says, if something good happens they try to discredit that.
To me it will be always the false equivalence that they bring day in and day out. Sure, they can say that they are fair and balanced, but it is a crazy balance what they have there.
You can have 99.9% of expert historians, scientists, technical people saying that humans did go to the moon, but FOX will balance that with .1% pure denier idiocy, a clearly false counterbalance; but never mind, they make money in the effort (It was the Fox entertainment division the ones that made the Moon Hoax special, but FOX news was and is still there with their patented “?” headlines citing the show).
Surely you jest you maker of enlightened ones! I know that you are riffing the poster named as the one that performed spectacular feats of stratospheric skill, never before attempted by civilized man, but that hot air balloon of a poster failed to return to the fair…
You can’t know that for sure! Hasn’t gotten back yet, thats the most you can say! Unless you can predict the exact instant that the ballon doesn’t return, your conjecture is not falsfiable, and therefore, not really science! Its like that famous blimp that maybe did or did not crash and burn in New Jersey? You remember, it was called the Heisenberg. Pretty sure that’s it.
Even for a straw man, that’s too much of an exaggeration. We all know that reasonable people can be satisfied with predictions that modestly stick to “within twenty years,” or the like; surely you realize I’d stick up for GIGO against anyone who claims his latest conjecture isn’t falsifiable?
The negative and affirmative of each of those questions added up to 100, so I’m guessing that 64% of the people in the survey watched FOX news, not 64 people.
Anyway, the survey only asked questions on 3 topics. Not informative either way. I’d like to see a survey that really demonstrates the effect of FOX false propaganda on a wide variety of important topics. I take that back, I don’t want to see the results of that survey.
You see **elucidator **? The hot air balloon is still in the land of Oz.
Of course the item here is the infamy of FAUX news, not what the hot air balloon wants, and there is no worse source IMHO than the one that lies to their viewers via the false equivalency method.
You’re a strange one, GIGO. I’m the guy who got everything he wants, who agrees that your latest prediction is falsifiable, and still you’re acting like there’s some distance between our positions. Why is that?
Again, since I already got what I wanted, I’m mystified as to why you persist with the insults. Aren’t we currently on the same side?
If that was the case you should had come already with the **sources **that gave you the foolish lines of ideas and tactics that were so pitiful, so off with those sources.
It has already pointed out that not even the “falsify” fetish you have is of not much use regarding climate research as it has already falsifications and just plain misuse of that tool have been proposed many times before by deniers (once again I was right, your ideas are of the 10:20:30 variety), already proposed, and even more sad, you still act like if they have not been dealt with before.
The idea and tactic for some reason under discussion in this thread is – me asking for falsification criteria when folks make predictions. If you’re asking for the source of that, I can but mention that the college I attended was as keen on that stuff as the high school before it and the grad school that followed.
How are they of the 10:20:30 variety? I’m not supplying one of my own; I merely asked for yours, and you eventually supplied one.
Again, your replies mystify me: I’m merely acting as if you’ve supplied a perfectly good falsification criterion. I acted the same way when you offered your original criterion; I kept acting the same way once you’d shifted the goalposts to a different falsifiable criterion; I’m still acting the same way now that you’ve moved the goalposts to the current falsifiable criterion. I’m simply and only acting as if I find no fault in it.
From that link: "Climate denialists are fond of arguments regarding the falsifying of hypotheses. There are two main thrusts they use here, (ironically enough mutually exclusive thrusts*). The first is that global warming is an “unfalsifiable” theory and therefore not a true scientific construct."*
And then: “The second “falsification” angle taken by the denalists is that real world observations have contradicted AGW theories”
The former clearly doesn’t apply here, as I don’t claim it’s an unfalsifiable theory; the latter doesn’t apply either, as I’m not claiming that real world observations have contradicted said theories. I therefore don’t know why you posted so irrelevant a link, sure as I don’t know why you insist we’re on different sides of the issue; I’m not entirely sure what you think we currently disagree about, or what “10:20:30” claim you think I’m making. From my perspective, your claims seem satisfactory and I’m in apparent agreement; I can’t imagine what you’d like to change about that.
The rest can be ignored as just pap and not related.
No, this is not the point of this discussion so do not make it your show. As it was pointed out before, and this related to FOX too, you did “come” with the “original” idea that “they call it climate change now” **that **actually came from Frank Luntz" and his research to make talking points for Republicans, FOX and other followed with the meme and it mutated to the claim that climate researchers did that, unless you can claim Frank Luntz was your high school teacher.
But this goes to one point I made many threads ago, many of the ones that continue to claim that they had a clever or show stoppers ideas in reality are reheating year old baloney.
If you can not admit you got the lousy ideas from somewhere, you are the one that is admitting that you are lousy yourself; one of the things I do, specially in discussions on media, is to point out that we need the sources that you use to get those lousy ideas (and applying falsification the way you did was boiler plate standard issue) for two reasons:
To assign blame and condemnation for misleading people, and to advise others to dump them as sources of information.
