Behavior OnLine Forums  
The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals.
 
Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine.

Go Back   Behavior OnLine Forums > >

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 22nd, 2006, 08:02 AM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”—“an embarrassment"

Quote:
TomJ: So, you choose not to refute the scientific evidence that illustrates that I'm right and you're wrong.
Best I can tell, Tom, most here wouldn’t agree that your “repression module” proposition is, as you claim, all that “right” or scientific. I was hoping that Carey would address your illusory “scientific evidence” that you’ve managed to conjure from that “Freud Returns” article by Mark Solms, but apparently Carey’s not going to bother either; can’t say that I blame him. Although perhaps in your case there really is some sort of “repression module” thingy at work keeping you from accepting/acknowledging that your supposition isn’t based on valid/relevant/convincing “scientific evidence.”

However Tom, there are lots of so-called “defense mechanisms” that Freud invented, many having a ring of truth, and that perhaps you may enjoy playing with and/or use in supplementing your “repression module” machinations—courtesy of Wiki:

Quote:
Denial. An ego defense mechanism that operates unconsciously to resolve emotional conflict, and to reduce anxiety by refusing to perceive the more unpleasant aspects of external reality;

Displacement. An unconscious defense mechanism, whereby the mind redirects emotion from a ‘dangerous’ object to a ‘safe’ object. In psychoanalytic theory, displacement is a defense mechanism that shifts sexual or aggressive impulses to a more acceptable or less threatening target; redirecting emotion to a safer outlet;

Intellectualization (isolation). Concentrating on the intellectual components of the situations as to distance oneself from the anxiety provoking emotions associated with these situations;

Projection. Attributing to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety in the way that it allows the expression of the impulse or desire without letting the ego recognize it;

Rationalization. The process of constructing a logical justification for a decision that was originally arrived at through a different mental process;

Reaction formation. The converting of unconscious wishes or impulses that are perceived to be dangerous into their opposites;

Regression. The reversion to an earlier stage of development in the face of unacceptable impulses;

Repression. The process of pulling thoughts into the unconscious and preventing painful or dangerous thoughts from entering consciousness;

Suppression. The conscious process of pushing thoughts into the preconscious.

Dissociation: Separation or postponement of a feeling that normally would accompany a situation or thought.

Idealization: Form of denial in which the object of attention is presented as "all good" masking true negative feelings towards the other.

Identification:The unconscious modelling of one's self upon another person's behaviour.

Introjection: Identifying with some idea or object so deeply that it becomes a part of that person.

Inversion: Refocusing of aggression or emotions evoked from an external force onto one's self.

Isolation:Inability to simultaneously experience the cognitive and affective components of a situation.

Somatization: Manifestation of emotional anxiety into physical symptoms.

Splitting: Primitive defense mechanism-when a person sees external objects or people as either "all good" or "all bad."

Substitution: When a person replaces one feeling or emotion for another.
Have fun.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old June 22nd, 2006, 08:35 AM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”—“an embarrassment"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred H.
there are lots of so-called “defense mechanisms” that Freud invented
Quoting Freud does not explain away the scientific facts, which you may have to read once again:

Quote:
Damage to the right parietal region of these people’s brains makes them unaware of gross physical defects, such as paralysis of a limb. After artificially activating the right hemisphere of one such patient, Ramachandran observed that she suddenly became aware that her left arm was paralyzed—and that it had been paralyzed continuously since she had suffered a stroke eight days before. This showed that she was capable of recognizing her deficits and that she had unconsciously registered these deficits for the previous eight days, despite her conscious denials during that time that there was any problem.
Quote:
Significantly, after the effects of the stimulation wore off, the woman not only reverted to the belief that her arm was normal, she also forgot the part of the interview in which she had acknowledged that the arm was paralyzed, even though she remembered every other detail about the interview. Ramachandran concluded: “The remarkable theoretical implication of these observations is that memories can indeed be selectively repressed…. Seeing [this patient] convinced me, for the first time, of the reality of the repression phenomena that form the cornerstone of classical psychoanalytical theory.”
Unless your theory of free will can explain these facts and the regret module, it's wrong. Therefore, Fred, you're wrong.

Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old June 22nd, 2006, 05:59 PM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”—“an embarrassment"

Quote:
Damage to the right parietal region of these people’s brains makes them unaware of gross physical defects, such as paralysis of a limb. After artificially activating the right hemisphere of one such patient, Ramachandran observed that she suddenly became aware that her left arm was paralyzed.
Yep, that kind of damage can diminish awareness, saneness, the ability to reason, freewill. Is that some sort of revelation to you? And if the damage is severe enough, the individual may no longer be truly morally responsible—as Pinker has noted, “that’s why we don't punish children, animals, machines, or the truly insane.”
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old June 23rd, 2006, 08:55 AM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”—“an embarrassment"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred H.
Yep, that kind of damage can diminish awareness, saneness, the ability to reason, freewill.
Yes, thank you, this proves my point.

Unless you think that repression and regret are 'all or nothing' things - that everyone in the world who's not 'diminished' has every module working with the exact same effectiveness in every situation - your house of cards falls to the floor.

You can't hold anyone 'morally' responsible if everyone has a different predisposition to do the right thing; "good people's" conformity has nothing to do with 'will', they just have the physical makeup that allows them to be productive citizens to varying degrees.

So, free will is an illusion. 'Will' is based on the state of the brain and is, therefore, not free.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old June 23rd, 2006, 10:29 AM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”—“an embarrassment"

Quote:
TomJ: Yes, thank you, this proves my point….

You can't hold anyone 'morally' responsible if everyone has a different predisposition to do the right thing….
But it only “proves” your “point” only to you yourself, Tom—Pinker certainly wouldn’t agree, and I’m reasonably certain that Carey, Todd, and JimB probably don't agree either. Ask them. Your denial, projection, rationalization, repression, suppression, dissociation, whatever, is really quite remarkable. You get the last word.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old June 23rd, 2006, 03:31 PM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”—“an embarrassment"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred H.
You get the last word.
I don't mind if everyone disagrees, facts are facts. I know that most people feel uncomfortable saying what I do because of our need to punish anti-social people, regardless of whether they're ultimately responsible. People's will, though it is not free, is altered by real or expected consequences; that's part of the system that causes their choices.

That's why I feel people should be separated from their temptations rather than beat to hell. Though both often work.

Thanks for the platform...
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old December 5th, 2006, 10:24 PM
reim0001 reim0001 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1
Default Re: Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”—“an embarrassment"

In Response to “Scientists Respond to Gore’s Warning of Climate Change”: Global Warming is Happening!
By Taylor Reiman

The debate on global warming no longer should be is it happening or not; instead, we should be focusing on debating what does this mean for our future. In the blog “Scientists Respond to Gore’s Warnings of Climate Change” by Tom Harris, he claims only a small fraction of credited individuals agree that global warming is taking place. In fact, I found it hard to find any credible scientists, who aren’t working for a special interest group, to disagree with the fact that global warming is occurring. The world is largely accepting global warming (a majority, not a fraction), and the debate should now be focused on how will this change our future environment and what can we do to prevent this.

In the twentieth century, the world started accepting global warming as not just as a theory but as a serious concern for the future. Most of the heat wasted and discarded (which is 20 percent more than Japan) could easily be recycled (Lovins 75). In June 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development met for eleven days with the main focus on global warming. While there, 155 countries signed an agreement to minimize global climate change (“A Brief Introduction to the Climate Change Convention,” par. 3). If only a small fraction of people felt global warming was an occurring fact, why would 155 countries make an agreement to try to stop this phenomenon?

The truth is, it’s much harder to find someone who doesn’t agree with global warming. There are many people with many credentials who could be cited for publicly agreeing with this theory, but there is one person in particular. The President of the United States of America, George W. Bush, recently held a conference supporting the research in global warming, due to its growing significance in our world. George W. Bush stated, “Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world” (“President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change,” par. 3). The President states he supports advancing science on climate change, advancing technology to monitor and reduce green house gas, and supports advancing a “joint venture“ to establish “state-of-the-art climate modeling“ with Japan and EU and others to study impacts of climate change. Our president also supports and is working towards establishing the U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative (“President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change,” par. 19). If our president can not only agree with the ongoing problem of global warming but supports dedicating so much money into solving this problem, there must be more than just a small fraction of humanity who believe in global warming.

The facts are that our earth’s temperature has rose .6 degrees C. in the last century along with the sea level rising several inches (“President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change,” par. 6). Global warming simply put is the warming of the temperature on earth’s lower atmosphere, and there is no doubt that this has occurred. During Shakespeare’s time he breathed in 280 molecules of CO2 per million, and today we breath in 380 molecules of CO2 per million (Socolow 49). Facts also show that since the start of the industrial era the parts per million (ppm) of CO2 has sharply risen 40 ppm to 285 ppm (Ruddiman 50). There are many facts to support the idea of global warming , but ultimately it’s a personal decision to accept the theory or not. Although if humanity chooses to ignore this problem, the consequences could cost us our world as we know it. There is no doubt we are constantly polluting our environment. Is it that unreasonable to think that this could cause some serious side effects for our planet; and in that case, is it so much to ask that we at least attempt to find saver resources for energy? Is it far to ignore this problem and possibly make it very difficult (if not impossible) for future generations to survive in our polluted environment? If you don’t see a problem with this, then I would say you are part of only a small fraction of people who don’t.

In your blog you cited seven scientists and not was of them was a so called “world climate experts.” In fact, five of the seven scientists you cited are professors at mostly state universities, and the other two scientists you cited are former researchers (no longer working in the field of global warming). Tom Harris also cites a Dr. Roy Spencer, a researcher at The University of Alabama but fails to mention what he researches and what are the Dr.’s qualifications. I don’t see how these scientists you cited could be considered “world climate experts.” My other area of concern is the fact that you keep stating only a small number of climate scientists would agree with this phenomenon; if this was the case, why did you only cite seven scientists who for the most part don’t directly study the effects of global warming and our environment?

Insulting Gore doesn’t make a strong case for why global warming isn’t happening; if you ask me, it only weakens your credibility. You quoted so-called experts saying Gore was, “weak,” “pathetic,” “misleading,” and you even quoted one of your experts saying Gore is an “embarrassment” and everything he says is “junk science.” If you had a stronger case, you probably wouldn’t need to attack someone so personally. You also attack the scientific models that are being created to try to predict our environments future. You even say that “Gore or others” would suggest that there is a consensus on one perfect climate change model. However, once again you fail to mention what this climate change model is that “Gore or others“ agree on, and you don‘t mention an actual forecasting model you agree with. You also claim that we should listen to scientists who use “real data”, but you don’t mention any of this false data or who is using it. While researching, I couldn’t find any proof of this. However, there are a significant number of researchers who are looking for a solution to global warming.

We should be past debating if global warming is happening; the simple facts are our planet is getting warmer. The things we need to be debating are how are we going to lower the CO2 gases in the air. We can start by driving cars less, and finding more energy efficient lifestyles. So, it’s a personal decision as to how much you are willing to except global warming. But if you are willing to educate yourself, you will find it’s definitely an occurring phenomenon that requires some well deserved extensive attention.










Works Cited

“A Brief Introduction to the Climate Change Convention,” United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change. 4 Dec. 2006.

Lovins, Amory B. “More Profit Less Carbon,” Sept. 05. Scientific America

pg. 76.

“President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change,” Jun.01.

The White House. 4 Dec. 2006.

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html>.

Socolow, Robert H. “Can We Bury Global Warming?” Jul. 05. Scientific America

pg. 49.

Ruddiman, William F. “How Did Human First Alter Global Climate?” Mar. 05.

Scientific America pg. 50.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old December 7th, 2006, 10:24 AM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”—“an embarrassment"

Quote:
The truth is, it’s much harder to find someone who doesn’t agree with global warming.
Yeah, as I’ve noted elsewhere, the available data for the past 100 years does seem to indicate an upward trend in temperature, especially for recent years/decades; although the limited info available for the past 1,000 years isn’t quite as persuasive; and beyond 1,000 years things really tend to get rather sketchy.

Nevertheless, I suppose it’s not terribly unreasonable to connect the current upward trend in temperature with increased human pollution, although I find dire projections of large temperature increases over the next 100 years to be less than compelling (and keep in mind that in the 70s there was actually a downward trend and predictions of an ice age). And when we consider that millions of years ago North Dakota was warm enough to have palm trees and alligators, that it’s probably too late to substantially reverse whatever effects human pollution supposedly have had or will have, that terrorists nuking us into oblivion seems to be a far greater threat, and that human extinction is, ultimately, inevitable anyway, then I find it difficult to get overly concerned about a current and relatively short-term trend in temperature.

Happy Pearl Harbor day.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old December 20th, 2006, 12:35 PM
James Brody James Brody is offline
Forum Leader
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia area
Posts: 1,143
Default Polar ice cap stabilized?: "an embarrassment"

I remember a news clip, never to be repeated by the drive-bys, that the Soviet Academy of Science and our equivalent agree that polar ice caps no longer shrink.

And a second clip last night that the ozone layer is closed!

My hallucinations or did some bright people choose their evidence too carefully...

JimB
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © 1995-2023 Liviant Internet LLC. All rights reserved.