Hmmm I can certainly “always try to do it”, but to what end?
I am satisfied with what I’ve found in my almost-two-month intensive search.
It is clear from my experiences that engaging the “experts” (presumably climate scientists/climatologists) that you want me to engage in will not be fruitful, for the reasons I already outlined, none of which you addressed.
Further it is clear that in doing so it won’t change your opinion of the value of the ideas, nor that of anybody else who shares your way of thinking about this – as evidenced by the fact that your finding out that I have indeed gone to “more expert forums/media than this one” changed your opinion of the ideas presented from being essentially valueless because of a lack of a genuine thirst for knowledge, to being essentially valueless because I am “deeply [or ‘may be not “deeply”’] involved emotionally with this topic”. That is, it didn’t change your opinion at all.
As such, I don’t really see the purpose of taking your advice here. It seems to amount to basically advising me that I can indeed go and bang my head repeatedly on a wall, with no benefit to be had for anyone and not even the wall.
I can’t help but think that you’re attempting to somehow put me down for having emotions about this topic – as if becoming “involved emotionally” with something is a sinful act to be frowned upon!
You do realize the point of actualism is to feel your feelings fully and sincerely, and to become involved in it with all your ‘being’? As ‘being’ is intrinsically emotional, it means precisely this, to get “involved emotionally” to the fullest, to seek and to actually find!
Actualism is not something to be engaged in with detachment and non-chalance!
What I presume you mean to say is that you “see/judge/think/believe” that I have become emotionally defensive of what Richard wrote, or fervently wish what he wrote to be true (i.e. that I believe[1] in it), which emotional involvement is distorting my capacity for rational and sensible thinking about the topic.
Yet such an observation/judgement/thought/belief that you had suffers the same problem that @JonnyPitt’s did in the Cause of Bias? thread – namely, you haven’t provided any examples of me having been irrational/not sensible/factually incorrect/etc. on the topic.
Further as I am basically agreeing with what Richard wrote, you would also be saying that Richard himself suffered from some lack of rationality or sensibility when he wrote his article. (Presumably if you agreed with what he wrote you would not have qualms with me re-presenting what he wrote here.) Yet, again, you haven’t provided any examples or evidence for this.
As you have basically indicated that you have no intention of providing any examples [2], then it doesn’t appear anything fruitful can come from continuing down this line of conversation, does it?
Lastly as I spent a good part of these almost-two-months trying to prove Richard wrong about the relevance of point 11 in his article (as I wrote in my journal recently), then a key part of your premise - that I am basically deeply (or “may be not “deeply””) emotionally involved in defending something Richard wrote for the sole fact that he is Richard and I believe whatever he says (rather than, say, because he wrote something factual and I critically evaluated it with everything I got) - is shown to be invalid.
May I ask – what is prompting you to write what you wrote here in these last messages to me, since as you indicated[2:1], it isn’t due to a critical evaluation of what I’ve written? What is your goal in doing so, what are you looking to get out of it?
It’s a sincere question!
Cheers,
Claudiu
“Peter: To believe means ‘fervently wish to be true’.” (source) ↩︎
As you wrote that I “should expose your ideas to those who have the time, the knowledge and the will to analyze them properly” , and you are one of the people on the forum that I have exposed my ideas to, you are essentially saying that you yourself do not have “the time, knowledge, and the will to analyze them properly” . ↩︎ ↩︎