Discussion:
John Cook's Denial101x course is gonna backfire big time
(too old to reply)
Tunderbar
2015-05-01 15:07:00 UTC
Permalink
https://courses.edx.org/courses/UQx/Denial101x/1T2015/courseware/ad1c5e52143c4b059ef86280fb586f8e/e95314060ce2498eac8247e54e1d1899/

From their introduction video of John Cook:

We'll distinguish denial from skepticism. Genuine scientific skepticism is a good thing.

In fact, it's the heart of the scientific method. A genuine skeptic doesn't
come to a conclusion until they've considered the evidence. In contrast, someone who denies well-established science comes to a conclusion first, and then discounts any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs. That means that denial and skepticism are polar opposites. So in Denial101x, we embrace skepticism. We even seek to reclaim the word so that skepticism once again becomes associated with evidence-based critical thinking rather than the rejection of scientific evidence.


***

Anybody with even a passing interest in the issue, and even a slight familiarity with the activist scientists, and especially with the climategate emails, will see that the alarmists are truly the deniers here. And by their own definition. LOL.

What Cook says about "deniers" is so blatantly and obviously the reverse of the reality, that it is absolutely comical.

Sceptics will discuss the science and the evidence that led to their conclusions, while alarmists will shut down debate and demand that people accept their conclusions without any valid or plausible evidence.

Sceptics will show their evidence and discuss their evidence, while alarmists will shout bullshit about a consensus.

This course is the exact opposite of what a real scientist needs to do to convince anyone that their science has any validity.

Their description of "deniers" actually describes John Cooks words and behavior in the very first intro video of their course. And it smacks you in the face, it is so blatant and obvious.

John Cook is seriously stupid.

Even the best sceptical actors and producers could not come up with a better video to convince people that cagw is bullshit like this course does on its own.

Carry on, Mr Cook. Good work.
Tom P
2015-05-02 20:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tunderbar
https://courses.edx.org/courses/UQx/Denial101x/1T2015/courseware/ad1c5e52143c4b059ef86280fb586f8e/e95314060ce2498eac8247e54e1d1899/
We'll distinguish denial from skepticism. Genuine scientific skepticism is a good thing.
In fact, it's the heart of the scientific method. A genuine skeptic doesn't
come to a conclusion until they've considered the evidence. In contrast, someone who denies well-established science comes to a conclusion first, and then discounts any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs. That means that denial and skepticism are polar opposites. So in Denial101x, we embrace skepticism. We even seek to reclaim the word so that skepticism once again becomes associated with evidence-based critical thinking rather than the rejection of scientific evidence.
***
Anybody with even a passing interest in the issue, and even a slight familiarity with the activist scientists, and especially with the climategate emails, will see that the alarmists are truly the deniers here. And by their own definition. LOL.
What Cook says about "deniers" is so blatantly and obviously the reverse of the reality, that it is absolutely comical.
Sceptics will discuss the science and the evidence that led to their conclusions, while alarmists will shut down debate and demand that people accept their conclusions without any valid or plausible evidence.
Sceptics will show their evidence and discuss their evidence, while alarmists will shout bullshit about a consensus.
This course is the exact opposite of what a real scientist needs to do to convince anyone that their science has any validity.
Their description of "deniers" actually describes John Cooks words and behavior in the very first intro video of their course. And it smacks you in the face, it is so blatant and obvious.
John Cook is seriously stupid.
Even the best sceptical actors and producers could not come up with a better video to convince people that cagw is bullshit like this course does on its own.
Carry on, Mr Cook. Good work.
The course is about denialism, in particular the politics of climate
denialism, but it also discusses other examples of pressure group
denialists in action such as immunization, cancer risk from smoking and
evolution. If you want to dispute climate science there are plenty of
other on-line courses where you can voice your objections to established
science and try to prove why climate scientists are wrong.

In any case, it's refreshing to see that you take in interest.
Tunderbar
2015-05-03 04:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom P
Post by Tunderbar
https://courses.edx.org/courses/UQx/Denial101x/1T2015/courseware/ad1c5e52143c4b059ef86280fb586f8e/e95314060ce2498eac8247e54e1d1899/
We'll distinguish denial from skepticism. Genuine scientific skepticism is a good thing.
In fact, it's the heart of the scientific method. A genuine skeptic doesn't
come to a conclusion until they've considered the evidence. In contrast, someone who denies well-established science comes to a conclusion first, and then discounts any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs. That means that denial and skepticism are polar opposites. So in Denial101x, we embrace skepticism. We even seek to reclaim the word so that skepticism once again becomes associated with evidence-based critical thinking rather than the rejection of scientific evidence.
***
Anybody with even a passing interest in the issue, and even a slight familiarity with the activist scientists, and especially with the climategate emails, will see that the alarmists are truly the deniers here. And by their own definition. LOL.
What Cook says about "deniers" is so blatantly and obviously the reverse of the reality, that it is absolutely comical.
Sceptics will discuss the science and the evidence that led to their conclusions, while alarmists will shut down debate and demand that people accept their conclusions without any valid or plausible evidence.
Sceptics will show their evidence and discuss their evidence, while alarmists will shout bullshit about a consensus.
This course is the exact opposite of what a real scientist needs to do to convince anyone that their science has any validity.
Their description of "deniers" actually describes John Cooks words and behavior in the very first intro video of their course. And it smacks you in the face, it is so blatant and obvious.
John Cook is seriously stupid.
Even the best sceptical actors and producers could not come up with a better video to convince people that cagw is bullshit like this course does on its own.
Carry on, Mr Cook. Good work.
The course is about denialism, in particular the politics of climate
denialism, but it also discusses other examples of pressure group
denialists in action such as immunization, cancer risk from smoking and
evolution. If you want to dispute climate science there are plenty of
other on-line courses where you can voice your objections to established
science and try to prove why climate scientists are wrong.
In any case, it's refreshing to see that you take in interest.
To understand an issue you have to understand both sides of the issue. Read and listen to everything on both sides. Not just your people speaking points.

That is where you alarmist morons lose the battle. Instead of studying all sides of the issue, you only listen to those preaching to the choir. And you end up with the most pathetic uninspired repetitive drivel for arguments.

Just like John Cooks nonsense course. If you actually looked at it in context of sceptics actual arguments, you'd be first to tell him to stfu. That course is pathetic and very transparent and enlightening about who the deniers really are.

And in the past, I would not tell you guys this for fear that you'd actually listen to me and get your shit together and do stuff that would actually be effective instead of the obviously crap fail nonsense like what Cook is doing.

But I've mentioned it numerous times and you idiots just keep on doing the exact worse thing you could do for your cause. LOL. Keep it up. Cook is your worse enemy, not us.
Desertphile
2015-05-22 14:00:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom P
Post by Tunderbar
https://courses.edx.org/courses/UQx/Denial101x/1T2015/courseware/ad1c5e52143c4b059ef86280fb586f8e/e95314060ce2498eac8247e54e1d1899/
We'll distinguish denial from skepticism. Genuine scientific skepticism is a good thing.
In fact, it's the heart of the scientific method. A genuine skeptic doesn't
come to a conclusion until they've considered the evidence. In contrast,
someone who denies well-established science comes to a conclusion first,
and then discounts any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs. That
means that denial and skepticism are polar opposites. So in Denial101x,
we embrace skepticism. We even seek to reclaim the word so that skepticism
once again becomes associated with evidence-based critical thinking rather
than the rejection of scientific evidence.
And a huge success the class has been so far. More than 12,000 students.
Post by Tom P
The course is about denialism, in particular the politics of climate
denialism, but it also discusses other examples of pressure group
denialists in action such as immunization, cancer risk from smoking and
evolution. If you want to dispute climate science there are plenty of
other on-line courses where you can voice your objections to established
science and try to prove why climate scientists are wrong.
Heh! Turderbar has no interest in science, let alone correcting any errors
scientists have made.
Post by Tom P
In any case, it's refreshing to see that you take in interest.
--
"We will never have the elite smart people on our side." -- Rick Santorum
Tunderbar
2015-05-22 14:11:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Desertphile
Post by Tom P
Post by Tunderbar
https://courses.edx.org/courses/UQx/Denial101x/1T2015/courseware/ad1c5e52143c4b059ef86280fb586f8e/e95314060ce2498eac8247e54e1d1899/
We'll distinguish denial from skepticism. Genuine scientific skepticism is a good thing.
In fact, it's the heart of the scientific method. A genuine skeptic doesn't
come to a conclusion until they've considered the evidence. In contrast,
someone who denies well-established science comes to a conclusion first,
and then discounts any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs. That
means that denial and skepticism are polar opposites. So in Denial101x,
we embrace skepticism. We even seek to reclaim the word so that skepticism
once again becomes associated with evidence-based critical thinking rather
than the rejection of scientific evidence.
And a huge success the class has been so far. More than 12,000 students.
LOL. "students". LOL.
Post by Desertphile
Post by Tom P
The course is about denialism, in particular the politics of climate
denialism, but it also discusses other examples of pressure group
denialists in action such as immunization, cancer risk from smoking and
evolution. If you want to dispute climate science there are plenty of
other on-line courses where you can voice your objections to established
science and try to prove why climate scientists are wrong.
Heh! Turderbar has no interest in science, let alone correcting any errors
scientists have made.
Post by Tom P
In any case, it's refreshing to see that you take in interest.
--
"We will never have the elite smart people on our side." -- Rick Santorum
Loading...