The futility of arguing about science

[ed]

And how many Flu cases have been reported?

First they misdirect with tides then they create a non-existent epidemic. Then they implant things.

You are a tool.

Are you calling me a "tool"? :P

If you are claiming Robinson is wrong about the tides, then you are making a claim where the burden of proof is now on you. Applied skepticism does not render a claim automatically false simply because you haven't yet seen all the evidence you require.

In any case, I don't understand why you keep insisting that it is "misdirection" to discuss how the tides work. What am I missing here? What are you trying to tell me, Ed? Please, connect all the dots for me as you see them.

Dots.

If only it were that simple, "connect the dots". The "Dots" are moving, don't you see? Randomly. Or ... apparently randomly. That is the point.

Do you see now, just a little?

[robinson]

What you are doing is called "misdirection".

And how many Flu cases have been reported?

Note how ed tries to misdirect the topic suddenly.

[robinson]

While the tides are sort of innocuous, not really going to matter much either way, when a scientific issue actually impacts your life, and your pocket, then things really get nasty.

[robinson]

But even so, the level of acrimony, venom and immature anger over the tides is really something else. I'm not joking. Assburger skeptics will rage on the keyboard over the tides, and the more the illusion of twin bulges chasing the moon starts to crumble, the more anger arises.

[ed]

Sudden misdirection shows command of the process.

[xouper]

And how many Flu cases have been reported?

First they misdirect with tides then they create a non-existent epidemic. Then they implant things.

You are a tool.

Are you calling me a "tool"? :P

If you are claiming Robinson is wrong about the tides, then you are making a claim where the burden of proof is now on you. Applied skepticism does not render a claim automatically false simply because you haven't yet seen all the evidence you require.

In any case, I don't understand why you keep insisting that it is "misdirection" to discuss how the tides work. What am I missing here? What are you trying to tell me, Ed? Please, connect all the dots for me as you see them.

Dots.

If only it were that simple, "connect the dots". The "Dots" are moving, don't you see? Randomly. Or ... apparently randomly. That is the point.

Do you see now, just a little?

What I'm seeing is someone who doesn't want to answer my question in a clear and unambiguous manner.

Which is fine. I don't really care. I just figured if there's something you wanted me to understand, you'd explain it. I apologize for wasting your time with such questions.

[ceptimus]

The twin bulges thing is just an oversimplified model - it's true in essence, but then the complications of coastline, variable depth of oceans and seas, etcetera, modify the tides at any specific location in important ways. The model does however explain why almost every coast experiences a high tide, low tide cycle roughly every twelve hours, and why the highest and lowest tides (so called spring tides) occur at full moon and new moon, and the tides with a smaller range (neap tides) occur at waxing and waning half moon, midway between the spring tides.

Oversimplified models are at the heart of science, and the best way of grasping and teaching concepts. So we teach children that the Earth goes around the sun in a circle, and then later we tell them that it's not quite a circle - actually nearer an ellipse - and that its speed varies as it goes around - and that it actually deviates from the ellipse a little due to the gravitational attractions of the moon and other planets, and so on...

Often you need a simple model to grasp the concept, and even when you have a more accurate model available, you don't need to bother with all the complicated details. NASA still uses the Newtonian model of gravity when calculating the paths of most of its space probes - NASA knows that the Einsteinian model is more accurate, but the Newtonian one is good enough for most practical purposes, and it's quicker and easier to use that to do the calculations.

[DJ]

:figamagee:


The how to explain the skepticism process without actually having to explain the skepticism process award goes to ceptimus.

[ed]

And how many Flu cases have been reported?

First they misdirect with tides then they create a non-existent epidemic. Then they implant things.

You are a tool.

Are you calling me a "tool"? :P

If you are claiming Robinson is wrong about the tides, then you are making a claim where the burden of proof is now on you. Applied skepticism does not render a claim automatically false simply because you haven't yet seen all the evidence you require.

In any case, I don't understand why you keep insisting that it is "misdirection" to discuss how the tides work. What am I missing here? What are you trying to tell me, Ed? Please, connect all the dots for me as you see them.

Dots.

If only it were that simple, "connect the dots". The "Dots" are moving, don't you see? Randomly. Or ... apparently randomly. That is the point.

Do you see now, just a little?

What I'm seeing is someone who doesn't want to answer my question in a clear and unambiguous manner.

Which is fine. I don't really care. I just figured if there's something you wanted me to understand, you'd explain it. I apologize for wasting your time with such questions.

I apologise, I was feeling contrary and just wrote shit for the hell of it. Nothing personal, just me. Sorry.

[sparks]

That is what we call sarcasm xoup. :)

[ed]

Actually, no. That is sincere. i felt bad.

[xouper]

Actually, no. That is sincere. i felt bad.

No need to feel bad. Really. No harm done. We're good. I'll still buy you a beer next time I'm in Florida.

You've always been one of the good guys here and this little (and inconsequential) thing doesn't change that.

:BananaCheers:

[Doctor X]

:figamagee:


The how to explain the skepticism process without actually having to explain the skepticism process award goes to ceptimus.

Meanie.

– J.D.

[Ben Trovado]

Actually, no. That is sincere. i felt bad.

No need to feel bad. Really. No harm done. We're good. I'll still buy you a beer next time I'm in Florida.

You've always been one of the good guys here and this little (and inconsequential) thing doesn't change that.

:BananaCheers:

Damnit. I came here for a Rhubarb.

Git Fightin'!

[Carr]

There's no fighting in the building!

[robinson]

The twin bulges thing is just an oversimplified model - it's true in essence, but then the complications of coastline, variable depth of oceans and seas, etcetera, modify the tides at any specific location in important ways.

Here's the problem, to even be able to respond to your claim.

It's not possible to even know what you are claiming is "an oversimplified model", much less to know if " it's true in essence".

There are three different "explainings" to say there are twin bulges. (and all are wrong)

There is inertia (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education ... avity.html)

There is "less pulling" (https://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-two ... -Dav%C3%A9)

And there is "centrifugal force" (https://scienceblogs.com/startswithaban ... g-the-moon)

And to make it worse, some "explainings" combine them all (https://noc.ac.uk/files/documents/busin ... nation.pdf)

There are hundreds of other examples online. They are all wrong, even if you use a hypothetical planet that is all ocean, and deep enough oceans to allow a tide to keep up with the moon.

Laplace explained all of this in 1775, and it has all been confirmed by direct measurement of the real oceans.

The lunar influence does not cause twin bulges, neither does the solar influence cause two different bulges. The model", for whatever reason is used to try and say there are two bulges, is completely wrong. It's wrong for whatever reason is used.

The mind fuck part, is that most bulge believers read that, and think it means the gravitational effect isn't real, which is not what it means.

It can't be made any simpler.

Most die hard believers can understand that if the moon was on a long tower, so it did not orbit, and the earth did not spin, there would be a bulge towards the moon, underneath the tower, because of gravity.

But there would not be a bulge on the other side of the planet.

Most can understand this. But somehow, when the earth and moon are moving, gravity is completely different, and there is now a second bulge opposite the moon. Which is absolutely not true.

There is no second ocean bulge, for any reason. In fact, there is no bulge under the moon either. Newton was wrong. That is not how it works.

I'm not exaggerating when I say people almost lose their minds over this.

[robinson]

The obvious objection is obvious.

Explaining why the objection is wrong is very difficult, especially when the audience knows almost nothing of the actual tides.

Here is an animation, showing the major amphidromic systems (this is how the tides actually look)

https://i.imgur.com/rXGQu.gif

The moving white bars are the moon, the thicker bar, and the other side of the world from the moon, the thin bar.

The red dots are the amphidromic points, the center of the amphidromic systems. (only the major ones are shown)

Light blue is high tide, dark is low tide.

This is what the sun/moon gravity influence causes. (the all white areas are very very complicated areas, which is why they are not shown)

If you want to see those areas, and all the amphidromic systems

see this -> http://fvcom.smast.umassd.edu/wp-conten ... de.mp4?_=3

[ceptimus]

It's certainly futile arguing with you about science. You know that high tide - low tide cycles occur roughly twice per day, and more exactly they occur every 12 hours 25 minutes. It takes 24 hours for the earth to rotate so that the sun appears to return to (almost) the same spot in the sky, and it takes 24 hours plus two times 25 minutes for the earth to rotate once with respect to the moon. So there's NO QUESTION that the tides are caused mainly by the moon, and also NO QUESTION that the highest spring tides occur when the sun, moon, and earth are lined up in roughly a straight line, and that the lowest neap tides occur when they are arranged roughly at right angles.

And what is a high tide? It's when the sea water rises higher than the land it's near. A child might describe this as "a bulge of water."

So you know there are two bulges of water that occur at any coastal location between each moonrise at that location, and yet you still wish to argue that there aren't "twin bulges of water."

Can't you see how stupid that makes you appear?

Yes, the tides are more complicated than the simplified "twin bulges" model describes - that is exactly what I said in my post. But to claim that the twin bulge model is actually wrong, is absurd anti-science.

[robinson]

Hahahaha

This subject almost never fails to illustrate the point\

[robinson]

Once somebody digs in their heels about the twin bulges, it is utter futility to argue about it

Meanwhile, in the actual real world, the rotating waves that create the actual tides continue their eternal dance

http://moocs.southampton.ac.uk/oceans/2 ... eal-world/

https://geo.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/ ... idal_Lines

https://i.imgur.com/rXGQu.gif

[asthmatic camel]

So, robinson. what really does cause the tides? The Atheist having yet another hissy fit and all the seawater heading towards New Zealand?

[robinson]

Gravity causes the tides

Laplace figured out how, and why there are no tides, one tide, two tides, or six tides a day

It’s not that the sun and moon don’t cause the tides

It just doesn’t happen like Newton thought

There is no bulge, much less a mysterious second one

[Doctor X]

One of my favorite cartoons:

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-stati ... 7409-3.png

Apparently, Watterson based the "dad" on his own dad.

That cartoon sort of explains why people believe in silly things. "Dad" probably cannot answer the question – he is a patent attorney like Bill's dad – but even if he can he knows his son will not understand it. Calvin accepts this since learning the truth will require a lot of hard work. So he just defaults to the story which he knows is wrong since it is so much easier. He hopes his "friend" will just agree.

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-stati ... 7007-8.png

is now my next favorite.

– J.D.

[asthmatic camel]

Gravity causes the tides

Laplace figured out how, and why there are no tides, one tide, two tides, or six tides a day

It’s not that the sun and moon don’t cause the tides

It just doesn’t happen like Newton thought

There is no bulge, much less a mysterious second one

Understood. Newton was a genius but certainly didn't get everything right: in fact, he got an awful lot wrong. He features in Neal Stephenson's The Baroque Trilogy, recommended elsewhere, and Bill Bryson paints a beautiful picture of this hugely eccentric man in A Short History of Nearly Everything, which also comes highly recommended to those interested in the history of science.

[xouper]

. . . He features in Neal Stephenson's The Baroque Trilogy, recommended elsewhere, and Bill Bryson paints a beautiful picture of this hugely eccentric man in A Short History of Nearly Everything, which also comes highly recommended to those interested in the history of science.

Both of those just went on my to-do list. Thanks.

[robinson]

If we are doing book recommendations

https://www.amazon.com/mc2-Biography-Wo ... 0425181642

[ed]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com ... f=1&nofb=1

Used this in a speech once explaining how advertising works.

[robinson]

https://twitter.com/repthomasmassie/sta ... 97216?s=21

[robinson]

The only thing worse is an argument about physics

[robinson]

Or about the increasing fall and winter snow cover in the boreal cold season

[robinson]

Conclusions

In summary, this randomized clinical trial of daily high-dose vitamin D supplementation for 5 years reduced the incidence of advanced (metastatic or fatal) cancer in the overall cohort of adults without a diagnosis of cancer at baseline, with strongest risk reduction in individuals with normal weight. Additional randomized trials focusing on cancer patients should be considered, as well as investigations of differential benefit by BMI. Even if vitamin D effects were modest, vitamin D supplementation at the studied levels are much less toxic and lower cost than many current cancer therapies.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamane ... le/2773074

[robinson]

For one fascinating study, published in the journal Obesity Research in 1994, researchers subjected seven pairs of young, sedentary identical twins to a 93-day period of intense exercise. For two hours a day, nearly every day, they'd hit a stationary bike.

The twins were also housed as inpatients in a research lab under 24-hour supervision and fed by watchful nutritionists who measured their every calorie to make sure their energy intake remained constant.

Despite going from being mostly sedentary to spending a couple of hours exercising almost every day, the participants only lost about 11 pounds on average, ranging from as little as 2 pounds to just over 17 pounds, almost all due to fat loss. The participants also burned 22 percent fewer calories through exercise than the researchers calculated prior to the study starting.

By way of explanation, the researchers wrote that either subjects' basal metabolic rates slowed down or subjects were expending less energy outside of their two-hour daily exercise block.

https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/ ... n-calories

Of course it's even more futile when it isn't even science being argued.

[Anaxagoras]

The tides go in, the tides go out. You can't explain that!

[robinson]

It's actually quite easy to explain the tides now, and actually show what is happening, because of satellite data. The thing that fucks with most people is they have been taught to imagine the tide is a bulge moving towards them, when that is almost never the case.

Once you understand the amphidromic system, and can imagine the giant circular wave that is causing the tide where you are, it makes perfect sense

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth54 ... c6_p1.html

http://moocs.southampton.ac.uk/oceans/2 ... eal-world/

https://www.maritimeprofessional.com/bl ... oint-13608

If you look at the animation showing the amphidromic systems,

https://i.imgur.com/rXGQu.gif

and then watch the animation showing the actual tides,

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uLH0SG9Vdmo/V ... ayanim.gif

and if you can get it, you can understand it, you end up actually knowing more about the ocean tides than most people on the planet.

But if one has already made up their mind, nothing will get through, and you will continue to not understand the tides in the real world.

[robinson]

As for the topic, I have discovered if it's an argument, not an exploration of reality, it is futile.

It really is futile to argue about science.

[xouper]

As for the topic, I have discovered if it's an argument, not an exploration of reality, it is futile.

If I am understanding what you mean by that, it would seem to be a variation of the error Aristotle is famous for making. He claimed it is possible to reason (or argue) one's way to the correct answer in science, and thus he eschewed empiricism. And that would explain why he got some science things wrong.

You've mentioned some examples, including the tides.

I may have mentioned this example before, as it is one of my favorite examples of why arguing about science is futile:

When someone says they can think (argue) their way to the correct answer in science, I like to ask this trick question:

All other things being equal, at room temperature, which is more dense, dry air or humid air?

Chemists and pilots usually know the answer. But most other people will prefer a chain of reasoning that is faulty, which goes something like this: Water is heavier than air, therefore air with water in it must also be heavier. Empiricism to the rescue: Humid air is measurably less dense. How can that be? Water molecules have less mass than air molecules. Combine that fact with Avogadro's Law, and the answer becomes obvious.

[Doctor X]

The tides go in, the tides go out. You can't explain that!

I thought serial sexual harassment and abuse led to his tide to go out.

– J.D.

[Hotarubi]

Tides are caused by El and YHWH playing an eternal game of blow football with the continents.

Checkmate assathetits.

[Doctor X]

You forget to include Mrs. YHWH – Asherah – who is responsible for the phases of the Moon.

#totalswinz

– J.D.

[robinson]

For those who don’t follow it, the DDWFTTW machine

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbi ... d_vehicle)

Which was built in 2010 and settled the matter in the same year

IS STILL BEING ARGUED ABOUT ONLINE

In fact just this year a bet was made (and the doubter lost)

But it didn’t stop the arguing


It’s literally like arguing an airplane can’t fly

And it’s non stop online

Internet makes arguing science a never ending story.

For laughs I once argued with a flat earth true believer. I knew it was futile, it was just for laughs