They know, I know and you should know that anthropogenic global warming is real. Everything else is a distraction, meant to confuse folks..

Of course it has. Astrology is nonsense. — Xtrix

Just for the sake of argument, what if astrology were true? How would it affect your scientific worldview and philosophy?

I can answer this easily enough. It would depend on the mechanism of Astrology and the scientific mindset.

Some scientists deny any suggestion of a causal effect if there is no known connection. Others are more willing to accept some ‘effect at a distance’ without knowing the actual mechanism at work. Xtrix, by my judgement, may fall a little more towards the requirement of some mechanism being explicable than I do … such differences are useful though and opposing stances help reveals more reliable approaches.

For me if I shake do X and Y happens far more often than not I will continue to do X if Y is what I want. I would still be curious about how X produces Y, and question if it really did do anything, but it would not really matter that much.

If you go by academia, the Western mind is (extreme) materialism manifest and doesn't tolerate the preternatural, reflexively dumping such ideas in the trash can. Outside of academia, it's an entirely different story, people are very receptive to the paranormal, including but not limited to astrology. My hunch is that formal & higher education drastically modifies our weltanschauungs - gullibility is replaced with skepticism and the rest is history.

My question was intended as a psychological test. I think many might say: should astrology turn out to work by whatever means, then I no longer believe anything science has told me so far. And that would reveal quite a bit about the mindset of these people.


What do you think about my list of articles?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/737258

If you go by academia, the Western mind is (extreme) materialism manifest and doesn't tolerate the preternatural, reflexively dumping such ideas in the trash can. — Agent Smith

Would you say that this fact is problematic?

The history of Science is a history of ideas that challenged orthodoxy. — yebiga

And many do not realize how spiteful, how contemptuous, how prejudiced and biased the scientific debates have been throughout history. Many scientists took their view for granted and made fun of other views, mocking their inventors/discoverers.

How people say they will react is usually quite different from how they would react. Generally speaking if someone’s worldview (axis mundi/weltanshauung) is X it will remain X even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The reason being the human mind can only become so stressed.

I haven’t looked at the articles at all and probably won’t. Not a topic that interests me massively tbh

Would you say that this fact is problematic? — spirit-salamander

Not an easy question to answer. I recommend a cautious approach - not dismissive but also not to dive headfirst into it. There must be a very good reason why ideas like astrology didn't make the cut so to speak - academics reject them outright as rubbish.

How people say they will react is usually quite different from how they would react. Generally speaking if someone’s worldview (axis mundi/weltanshauung) is X it will remain X even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The reason being the human mind can only become so stressed. — I like sushi

That's right. But I think everyone can soberly say for themselves, what if. For example, a friend of mine once said that if astrology proved to be correct in any sense, his world view would be completely turned upside down. Of course, this is all very hypothetical, because, as you say, if any "evidence" would have been brought to him, he would not have accepted it. And I also heard once, an opponent of the moon conspiracy theories say: Even if NASA, set the case, would deny someday officially the moon landings in the 60s and 70s with reasons, he would not believe it nevertheless, and he would also be confident to be able to disprove NASA in this.

There must be a very good reason why ideas like astrology didn't make the cut so to speak - academics reject them outright as rubbish. — Agent Smith

Paul Feyerabend once played the devil's advocate and defended astrology, and he saw that the arguments against the very ancient tradition of astrology were exceedingly weak.

Paul Feyerabend once played the devil's advocate and defended astrology, and he saw that the arguments against the very ancient tradition of astrology were exceedingly weak. — spirit-salamander

Mr. Paul could have argued well, I wouldn't know - there's always one guy/gal in the ER who insists on continuing the resuscitation procedure even after the patient is beyond all help.

Many scientists took their view for granted and made fun of other views — spirit-salamander

There's nothing wrong with having some fun. Don't confuse scientists with robots.

the arguments against the very ancient tradition of astrology were exceedingly weak. — spirit-salamander

Science does not proceed by argument, but by demonstration. The very idea of a universal force of attraction that acts at a distance is quite ridiculous; but Newton demonstrated that his gravitational calculations worked. Science is convincing because the magic works. Astrology is unconvincing because the magic does not work.

Science is convincing because the magic works. Astrology is unconvincing because the magic does not work. — unenlightened

Do you say so because you have already studied the history and systematic astrology in depth and have tested it on yourself and others? Or do you say so in advance because it just seems absurd to you?

The latter attitude among scientists was, as is known, rightly criticized by Paul Feyerabend, in my opinion. Here you can read about it:

https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/08/29/paul-feyerabends-defense-of-astrology-i/

the magic does not work. — unenlightened

Astrologers would object, of course. The astrological "laws" are inviolable for them just like the Newtonian ones, but they concern qualities of experience instead of quantities. That's their theory.

This is what a German astrologer (Johannes Vehlow) once said: “Astrology is deep truth, and everyone, if he makes an effort, can verify these truths on his own body, and if the investigations are not made too superficially, surely many a "Saul" will become "Paul".” [Astrologie ist tiefe Wahrheit, und jeder kann, wenn er sich bemüht, diese Wahrheiten am eigenen Leibe überprüfen, und wenn die Untersuchungen nicht zu oberflächlich vorgenommen werden, wird sicher mancher "Saulus" zum "Paulus".]

For the sake of argument and per impossibile, what do you think you would feel if the claims of astrology, in whatever sense, turned out to be true: sad, disappointed, happy, fascinated, thrilled?

Science is convincing because the magic works. — unenlightened

Would you say then that something cannot be valid concerning the ontological interpretations of Newton's formulas? Because the principle of the sufficient ground must still be accepted?

Sure, but still there is an ideal of the scientist. A standard to which all scientists want and should adhere. Love of truth and objectivity, sobriety, modesty, contempt for money and fame, apoliticalness, being factually nuanced and fair, patience, more head-driven than emotion-driven, frankness and honesty, and much more are part of the ideal. Also very important is fearlessness.

There's nothing wrong with having some fun. — Olivier5

And not to forget: He laughs best that laughs last.

Astrology is unconvincing because the magic does not work. — unenlightened

Maybe it's not magic:

Astrophysicist Dr. Percy Seymour magnetic theory of astrology

Sure, but still there is an ideal of the scientist. A standard to which all scientists want and should adhere. Love of truth and objectivity, sobriety, modesty, contempt for money and fame, apoliticalness, being factually nuanced and fair, patience, more head-driven than emotion-driven, frankness and honesty, and much more are part of the ideal. Also very important is fearlessness. — spirit-salamander

Long list of superhuman qualities you got there. By this token, only God is a scientist. And yet, a lack of humor was not mentioned in your super long list. So scientists can poke fun at others, yes?

Would you say then that something cannot be valid concerning the ontological interpretations of Newton's formulas? Because the principle of the sufficient ground must still be accepted? — spirit-salamander

I would say that validity pertains to argument, not to demonstration. If you want to send a rocket to the moon, or fire a shell at your enemy, or construct a pendulum for your clock, Newton's formula will help you to hit the target. That is a claim you can test or not, it is not an argument.

Maybe it's not magic: — spirit-salamander

I hate to be picky, but there is no demonstration of anything there, only a vague theory, that does not have any particular implications that could be tested and demonstrated. If it was so tested and could be so demonstrated, then it would be science. Until then, it's waffle. Scientists can and do have all sorts of strange ideas, but only those they can demonstrate are accepted by their fellows, however clever their arguments.

So my thesis is that we know very little about the interactions between the sun and the many layers of the earth's atmosphere. — spirit-salamander

And your thesis is wrong.

That other factors are mainly responsible for climate change I can't show to your satisfaction yet, unfortunately, — spirit-salamander

Why would this be “unfortunate”?

Skeptical about the fact that humans alone really control the climate and can change it through CO2 emissions or reduction. It is probably hubris to believe that we are changing the climate, — spirit-salamander

Humans “alone” don’t “control” the earth’s climate. No climate scientist ever has or ever will make that claim. So that’s another fabrication.

Human activity has increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is why the planet is warming at an alarming rate. Your ignorance and fabrication doesn’t change this fact— sorry.

See my post that explains this for beginners. If you can’t do that, I have no interest in taking time to read articles you Google (which don’t seem to support your position at all).

Western countries are continuing their trend in decoupling CO2 emissions from economic growth.
This is in spite of, not because of, the policies that the green movement support and in many places have had governments bring into force.

However, to the people who disagree that global warming is a threat, that climate change isn't real, I would like to have a polite and interesting discussion about why you feel the way you do.

It always reminds me of the poem “Fire and Ice” by Robert Frost. I’d much rather the climate stave off the ice age and warming is one way to accomplish that. In other words, since climate changes, it’s changing in a suitable direction. I hold with those who favor fire.

What I fear most is the lengths people will go to in order alter what they believe is a terrifying future. Crazy experiments, vast systems of coercion and control, and many lives sacrificed on the alter of safety and planning—all of these are a greater threat, to me.

So you don't think that ideals should be pursued. Isn't that what one teaches children? Ideal parents, ideal politicians, ideal students, etc., even if they are only weakly realized or counterfactual.

I'm not a native English speaker, but "poking fun" doesn't sound too bad, or it seems to me to be very general and cover a spectrum, from mild friendly humor to wicked mocking. Genuine humor is, after all, a virtue.

I had rather imagined mean bullying, tasteless scorn wrapped in jokes.

That is a claim you can test or not, it is not an argument. — unenlightened

So you're an instrumentalist, a pragmatist, a non-realist?

I hate to be picky, but there is no demonstration of anything there — unenlightened

And you are a skeptic?

There's nothing wrong with having some fun. — Olivier5

:up: Argumentum ad absurdo? I don't quite understand how funny = bad argument?

As an aside: Science began as skepticism in re religion; now, as a girl said to me a coupla weeks ago, it's being given a taste of its own medicine (climate skeptics). A full circle and not a pleasant one. I suppose climate skepticism is just one of many fed-up-with-science movements. It'll be interesting to watch how it all pans out.

I had rather imagined mean bullying, tasteless scorn wrapped in jokes. — spirit-salamander

Imagine away. Scientists are human beings like you and me. Some do scorn, others don't. In any case, to make fun of cretins is legit in my book. That'd be the reason God created cretins: to make us laugh.

And your thesis is wrong. — Xtrix

I have no interest in taking time to read articles you Google (which don’t seem to support your position at all). — Xtrix

I think that's a bit disingenuous on your part.

If you read my listed snippets from scientific articles, then you will realize, hand on your heart and frankly speaking and free from prejudice, that we still understand very little about the mechanisms in the atmosphere. And until we know a lot in this area, we can't say that CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily responsible for warming. Sorry, you are just wrong and blinded.

When do you think they first talked about man-made climate change caused by CO2? I can tell you that in that time period, much less was known. So the thesis was absolutely speculative. Any honest researcher should exercise caution and restraint. Because he can quickly be completely wrong with lack of knowledge, which includes the unexplored and unknown factors.

If you were intellectually honest, you would have to admit that my thesis is not absurd.

And I have already read such graphs as you have posted. So you are not telling me anything new. Do you really think that there is absolutely rigorous methodology and precise science behind these graphs?

I've seen official climate graphs that showed that there have been times in Earth's history when the CO2 level in the atmosphere was higher than it is today and it was still much colder, and conversely times when there was less CO2 and it was much hotter than it is today.

But I'm sure you didn't know the points I posted in my list.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/737258

I have no interest in taking time to read articles you Google (which don’t seem to support your position at all). — Xtrix

You're not serious, are you? You only need to read the quotes I copied out, then it is clear that other mechanisms can primarily influence the climate. My thesis is thus not unfounded.

Please admit that a scientist should not make any statements yet, if not all influencing factors are known.

Do you admit that a majority of scientists can be wrong about a shared opinion?

Please read the quotes from the articles in such a way that they convey a general picture. Which picture do you think emerges?

Your favorite philosophers Anaximander, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger would agree with me at least partially, if not completely. They would see that I do not tell nonsense. As a philosopher, you should admit that I may be on the right track.

To all. What aPicture arises when you read the following quotes? Please read with an open mind.

Venus: the hot spot

'It's very disturbing that we do not understand the climate on a planet that is so much like the Earth,' said Professor Fred Taylor, a planetary scientist based at Oxford University and one of the ESA's chief advisers for the Venus Express mission.' It is telling us that we really don't understand the Earth. We have ended up with a lot of mysteries.'

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/apr/09/starsgalaxiesandplanets.spaceexploration



THE CURIOUS CASE OF EARTH'S LEAKING ATMOSPHERE

Earth's atmosphere is leaking. Every day, around 90 tonnes of material escapes from our planet's upper atmosphere and streams out into space. Although missions such as ESA's Cluster fleet have long been investigating this leakage, there are still many open questions. How and why is Earth losing its atmosphere – and how is this relevant in our hunt for life elsewhere in the Universe?

[...]

Solar storms and periods of heightened solar activity appear to speed up Earth's atmospheric loss significantly, by more than a factor of three. However, key questions remain: How do ions escape, and where do they originate? What processes are at play, and which is dominant?”

https://sci.esa.int/web/cluster/-/58028-the-curious-case-of-earth-s-leaking-atmosphere#:~:text=Earth's%20atmosphere%20is%20leaking.,are%20still%20many%20open%20questions



No-fly zone: Exploring the uncharted layers of our atmosphere

It may not sound dramatic, but this moment, scheduled for early 2017, will mark a new era in human exploration. The probes will investigate a forbidden zone surrounding our planet. It’s a realm where planes can’t fly, balloons can’t float, and satellites soon plunge to a fiery end. So seldom have we visited it and so scanty is our knowledge of it that some scientists call it the ignorosphere.

This slice of the atmosphere is, at the same time, forbidden and forbidding. It holds both the coldest and the hottest air on Earth. It hosts elusive, shimmering clouds that can only be seen at night. And its moods can change in an instant, as turbulent winds from lower down mix with plasma arriving from the sun.

This unknown zone increasingly matters to us. We are sending up ever more satellites, which are vulnerable to flare-ups in the ignorosphere. Electrical disturbances in this region can scramble GPS signals and other communications. And its influence may even stretch down to ground level and alter our weather.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130870-400-nofly-zone-exploring-the-uncharted-layers-of-our-atmosphere/



Earth’s atmosphere stretches out to the Moon – and beyond

A recent discovery based on observations by the ESA/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, SOHO, shows that the gaseous layer that wraps around Earth reaches up to 630 000 km away, or 50 times the diameter of our planet.

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Earth_s_atmosphere_stretches_out_to_the_Moon_and_beyond




New insight into how Sun's powerful magnetic field affects Earth

The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously assumed

The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously believed, according to study, which can potentially change our understanding of the solar atmosphere and its effects on Earth.

[...]

Everything that happens in the Sun's outer atmosphere is dominated by the magnetic field, but we have very few measurements of its strength and spatial characteristics, Kuridze said.

https://www.theweek.in/news/sci-tech/2019/04/01/New-insight-into-how-Suns-powerful-magnetic-field-effects-Earth.html



What is Space Plasma?


Despite what a lot of people think, space isn't actually empty, and the Earth's magnetosphere is no exception! The magnetosphere is full of plasma of many different temperatures and densities - though most of it is too tenuous to see with the naked eye or even with a telescope. The air at sea level has a 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles per cubic centimetre and a temperature of 20 degrees C. The densest, coldest part of the magnetosphere, the plasmasphere has between 10 and 10,000 particles per cubic centimetre and a temperature of 58,000 degrees C - hotter than the surface of the Sun!

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mssl/research/solar-system/space-plasma-physics/what-space-plasma



Coupling between Geomagnetic Field and Earth’s Climate System


Historical and contemporary changes in climate system put a lot of questions, the answers to which are difficult. This motivates scientists from different branches to look for various factors with a potential influence on the climate system. Geomagnetic field is one of the proposed factors, due to the rendered multiple evidence for spatially or temporary co-varying geomagnetic field and climate, at different time scales. In this chapter, we clarify that hypothesized geomagnetic influence on climate could be reasonably explained through the mediation of energetic particles, propagating in Earth’s atmosphere, and their influence on the ozone density in the lower stratosphere.

https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/81193




The whole atmosphere response to changes in the Earth's magnetic field from 1900 to 2000: An example of “top-down” vertical coupling

Magnetic field changes from 1900 to 2000 cause significant changes in temperature and wind in the whole atmosphere system (0–500 km) in DJF

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD024890



Can we solve the mysteries of Earth's atmosphere?

Earth’s atmosphere still holds many secrets for science, but with the latest satellite launches and long-running observations from the ground, we are now gathering far more and better quality data about the weather and climate than ever before.

https://www.euronews.com/next/2017/10/19/can-we-solve-the-mysteries-of-earth-s-atmosphere




Revisiting the Mystery of Recent Stratospheric Temperature Trends

Better understanding of causes of stratospheric trends and whether they are properly represented in climate models also has implications for understanding recent tropospheric climate change

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL078035




Mysteries of some atmospheric halos remain unexplained after 5,000 years

The origins of some atmospheric optical illusions remain unknown, even after millennia of observation.

https://www.space.com/atmospheric-halo-inventory-mystery-unsolved




Atmospheric Metal Layers Appear with Surprising Regularity

The metals in those layers come originally from meteoroids blasting into Earth’s atmosphere, which bring an unknown amount of material to earth; and the regularly appearing layers promise to help researchers understand better how earth’s atmosphere interacts with space, ultimately supporting life.

https://cires.colorado.edu/news/atmospheric-metal-layers-appear-surprising-regularity




Mysterious new type of Northern Lights spotted in the ‘ignorosphere’

“In terms of physics, this would be an astounding discovery, as it would represent a new and previously unobserved mechanism of interaction between the ionosphere and the atmosphere.”

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/new-northern-lights-discovered-dunes




The Hidden Magnetic Universe Begins to Come Into View

Astronomers are discovering that magnetic fields permeate much of the cosmos. If these fields date back to the Big Bang, they could solve a major cosmological mystery.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-hidden-magnetic-universe-begins-to-come-into-view-20200702/




Climate 'mysteries' still puzzle scientists, despite progress

Scientists are still unsure what part clouds play "in the energy balance of the planet" and their influence on the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases, he said.

https://phys.org/news/2021-07-climate-mysteries-puzzle-scientists.html



Is There a Greenhouse Effect in the Ionosphere, Too? Likely Not

Controversial observations of long-term changes in the ionosphere appear to be explained by the Sun’s 11-year cycle of activity, not human greenhouse gas emissions.

Although we live in the atmosphere of Earth, the entire Earth lies in the atmosphere of the Sun—and the upper reaches of our own atmosphere are inextricably linked to the Sun’s activity.

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/is-there-a-greenhouse-effect-in-the-ionosphere-too-likely-not



'Magnetic ropes' connect Earth to Sun

NASA satellites have uncovered giant magnetic ropes linking the Earth's atmosphere to the Sun and channelling solar energy to create the spectacular northern and southern lights shows.

"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," NASA scientist David Sibeck said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-12-12/magnetic-ropes-connect-earth-to-sun/985232



Is the earth hanging by cosmic ropes inside a magnetic tunnel? Some scientists think so

Scientists are only beginning to learn more about these magnetic fields, and West is determined to understand as much as possible about why they exist and how they influence star and planet formation.

We need to understand what we're looking at close-up in order to get a sense of the bigger picture. I hope this is a step towards understanding the magnetic field of our whole Galaxy, and of the Universe."

This might even, West noted hopefully, someday include our own solar system.

https://www.salon.com/2021/10/27/is-the-earth-hanging-by-cosmic-ropes-inside-a-magnetic-tunnel-some-scientists-think-so/

So to you, I am a cretin.

For me, you are a dishonest, disingenuous interlocutor.

You believe in God?

But I'm no longer interested in your answer either way.

You are philosophically a nothing.

You're most welcome.