According to Occam's razor, you're getting destroyed here.Spatial, can you explain what Occam's Razor even is?
Yes I can.
Do you know why Legga is getting destroyed by Occam's razor terms ? Of course not.
It wouldn't be Occam who'd say he's being destroyed's more my point.
According to Occam's razor, you're getting destroyed here.Spatial, can you explain what Occam's Razor even is?
Yes I can.
Do you know why Legga is getting destroyed by Occam's razor terms ? Of course not.
It wouldn't be Occam who'd say he's being destroyed's more my point.
On the contrary. He would considering Occam's razor is based on efficiency of assumption, in which Legga made many.
According to Occam's razor, you're getting destroyed here.Spatial, can you explain what Occam's Razor even is?
Yes I can.
Do you know why Legga is getting destroyed by Occam's razor terms ? Of course not.
It wouldn't be Occam who'd say he's being destroyed's more my point.
On the contrary. He would considering Occam's razor is based on efficiency of assumption, in which Legga made many.
What has he assumed, rather than questioned?
According to Occam's razor, you're getting destroyed here.Spatial, can you explain what Occam's Razor even is?
Yes I can.
Do you know why Legga is getting destroyed by Occam's razor terms ? Of course not.
It wouldn't be Occam who'd say he's being destroyed's more my point.
On the contrary. He would considering Occam's razor is based on efficiency of assumption, in which Legga made many.
What has he assumed, rather than questioned?
"Oh watch this I'll manipulate Tony"
lol
Spatial, you're being a bit unreasonable.
I did admittedly not read all your posts at first; I did now. You're not really getting what I'm telling you. It's true that the best people can come up with is that you're likely incorrect. However, that's the best we can come up with for a number of propositions. The burden of proof is on you to make your case. It may sound unfair, because you need to do the work, but that's how science and rationality works. If you make a bunch of claims, nobody in their sane mind needs to `debunk` you. One of the many issues with this type of thinking is that it'd make any unfalsifiable proposition true from the outset. I'm happy to provide other examples of how this type of thinking leads to serious issues with basic epistemology, if you insist that you're still right about this.
To give your argument its fair due, you did provide some evidence to support your arguments. However, this is insufficient. What you need to demonstrate, also, is that you've understood the opposing arguments that exist in the literature, given fair weight to both sides of the evidence, and then give your rationale for why you chose to go with your side of the story. Why is this? The reason is because otherwise there's every reason to believe you've cherry-picked the evidence and strawmanned the opposing arguments. If and only if you can meet these basic criteria is there enough warrant to take your argument seriously and debate it.
If you tried to make your case in the forum where you should be making this case, it'd get shot down from the outset for the above reasons and you'd be laughed at, with all due respect -- even if you were right. There's no malintent or disrespect in what I say, it's just reality. I've received a ton of these type of crackpot studies, which make grand claims without having even gone through the basic literature review, and I've shot down every one of them. It might be frustrating, because you think you've got it down to a tit and people just don't see it, but that's how it works. If not for the slow scientific process, we'd get all sorts of sloppy claims and the scientific community will deteoriate to magic and witch burning.
Hemp is better, but not profitable because it can only run in certain engines. Most engines can't run on biofuel. If you for example built hemp biofuel stations, you'd be fucked cause hardly anyone has the required hardware to run their vehicles on biofuel. You've have to have a guy walk up to each car, and tell them your fuel is different, and turn them away.
Is it more profitable to build engines with hemp fuel and then sell it on large scale, presuming that the hardware problem can be addressed?
On a scale from 1 to 10 how likely is it that every company in the world, globally, is stupid enough not to switch to hemp? Or did the companies globally decide in one swoop conspiracy theory to not touch hemp so they can continue to exploit people and the atmosphere?
Oil is valuable because it's rare. One doesn't just go to the park and pull oil from under a rock. Whoever owns the land, owns the oil reserve. This incentivises the oil industry to push oil, not switch to something else EVERYONE can access starting with some seeds, soil and water.
Yes, everyone can access it, it has a gazillion use cases, and it would be so much more profitable. If everyone, literally everyone in the world with enough capital, would be able to capitalize on this market opportunity, then how come nobody has capitalized on it? Let's say there are 10,000 major oil companies and 100,000 other major companies with enough capital that they could potentially profit from hemp. How come not one of them switched to hemp and capitalized on the insane profits? Not even one greedy company wanted to go ahead. Do you not see how this proposition sounds like to me?
You seriously have not looked into the opposing arguments, which gets me back to the same thing I've been parroting over and over. You need to take a look at the opposing arguments and give them their fair due.
None of the debunks my claims. And fact remains, "Hemp is the most useful plant on Planet Earth. Period" I'll also throw in how hemp's cousin cannabis was demonized racially as it was being addressed by it's Mexican name Marijuana.
My point was more that you didn't recognize those arguments or give them their fair due. Have you ever heard of the word `steelman`?
if you ask me, the opposing arguments come from places of doubt. My claim is hemp is the best plant ever and everything it produces is impressive.
You still seem to think the burden of proof is on me, but more like I should be the one to deal out counter arguments to MY OWN claims.
Yes, that's how it works. You need to demonstrate that you've understood the counter arguments and came to your own conclusions after fairly weighing the evidence from all sides. Or are you saying you haven't studied the counter arguments, haven't studied the evidence from all sides, and haven't fairly weighted the evidence before coming to your conclusions? If so, do you see why I might think that's a problem?
Heh. I have reason to believe you even started here cause you're on TC's dick and now you're kinda backpedalling.
I frequently `backpedal` when I realize I'm wrong, and graciously admit my error. You seem to be doubling down instead.
Do you understand that I have no choice but to think little of you over that ? According to Occam's razor, you're getting destroyed here.
How am I at odds with Occam's razor?
Finally. Your Author Steven Wishnia who wrote that article you have faith in ( it's faith dude ) wrote this 5 years later, and he's with me on this thread. https://www.alternet.org/2013/02/hemp-harmless-potential-economic-miracle-and-still-illegal-america-tide-seems-be-turning/ in 2013 he still thought the evidence against Dupont was "unsustainable" indicating 1 man's opinion.
I have no faith in that article. I pointed it out because it took less than 5 minutes to find opposing arguments that you failed to give their due.
Spatial, you're being a bit unreasonable.
I did admittedly not read all your posts at first; I did now. You're not really getting what I'm telling you. It's true that the best people can come up with is that you're likely incorrect.
By your logic people are most likely incorrect if they don't post counter arguments to their claims. A counter argument doesn't default it to being correct.
However, that's the best we can come up with for a number of propositions. The burden of proof is on you to make your case.
Inq used to say the same thing. I personally don't burden others with having to proven anything, because I'll confirm their claims myself.
My claim is hemp is the most useful plant in the world, and it's output is impressive.
It may sound unfair, because you need to do the work, but that's how science and rationality works. If you make a bunch of claims, nobody in their sane mind needs to `debunk` you. One of the many issues with this type of thinking is that it'd make any unfalsifiable proposition true from the outset. I'm happy to provide other examples of how this type of thinking leads to serious issues with basic epistemology, if you insist that you're still right about this.
You're assuming this thread is theoretical, which it isn't. Hemp's quality and what it can do is known to us.
To give your argument its fair due, you did provide some evidence to support your arguments. However, this is insufficient.
Says you.
What you need to demonstrate, also, is that you've understood the opposing arguments that exist in the literature, given fair weight to both sides of the evidence, and then give your rationale for why you chose to go with your side of the story. Why is this? The reason is because otherwise there's every reason to believe you've cherry-picked the evidence and strawmanned the opposing arguments. If and only if you can meet these basic criteria is there enough warrant to take your argument seriously and debate it.
Yet another assumption, which is why Occam's razor would suggest I'm right.
Also it's not my job to provide opposing arguments when I give credit where it's due.
If you tried to make your case in the forum where you should be making this case, it'd get shot down from the outset for the above reasons and you'd be laughed at, with all due respect -- even if you were right.
That if, which doesn't exist. It happened this way, not that way.
There's no malintent or disrespect in what I say, it's just reality. I've received a ton of these type of crackpot studies, which make grand claims without having even gone through the basic literature review, and I've shot down every one of them. It might be frustrating, because you think you've got it down to a tit and people just don't see it, but that's how it works. If not for the slow scientific process, we'd get all sorts of sloppy claims and the scientific community will deteoriate to magic and witch burning.
Not really. In reality most interactions are forward and progressive. Those who require counter arguments to everything and expect otherd to confirm everything for them, will learn later than sooner.
Hemp is better, but not profitable because it can only run in certain engines. Most engines can't run on biofuel. If you for example built hemp biofuel stations, you'd be fucked cause hardly anyone has the required hardware to run their vehicles on biofuel. You've have to have a guy walk up to each car, and tell them your fuel is different, and turn them away.
Is it more profitable to build engines with hemp fuel and then sell it on large scale, presuming that the hardware problem can be addressed?
I addressed that already with an explination.
Hemp isn't as cheap as it would've been, and to date the hydro cell is the best solution.
On a scale from 1 to 10 how likely is it that every company in the world, globally, is stupid enough not to switch to hemp? Or did the companies globally decide in one swoop conspiracy theory to not touch hemp so they can continue to exploit people and the atmosphere?
Oil is valuable because it's rare. One doesn't just go to the park and pull oil from under a rock. Whoever owns the land, owns the oil reserve. This incentivises the oil industry to push oil, not switch to something else EVERYONE can access starting with some seeds, soil and water.
Yes, everyone can access it, it has a gazillion use cases, and it would be so much more profitable. If everyone, literally everyone in the world with enough capital, would be able to capitalize on this market opportunity, then how come nobody has capitalized on it? Let's say there are 10,000 major oil companies and 100,000 other major companies with enough capital that they could potentially profit from hemp. How come not one of them switched to hemp and capitalized on the insane profits? Not even one greedy company wanted to go ahead. Do you not see how this proposition sounds like to me?
You seriously have not looked into the opposing arguments, which gets me back to the same thing I've been parroting over and over. You need to take a look at the opposing arguments and give them their fair due.
Hemp wouldn't be more profitable.
You don't understand marketing. It's basically supply and demand. The more of the commodity, the cheaper it will be, due to the demand. Oil companies contend with other oil companies. The price of oil never goes down, because it is a limited resource. Hemp is obtainable in 3 months, and can be obtainable daily.
None of the debunks my claims. And fact remains, "Hemp is the most useful plant on Planet Earth. Period" I'll also throw in how hemp's cousin cannabis was demonized racially as it was being addressed by it's Mexican name Marijuana.
My point was more that you didn't recognize those arguments or give them their fair due. Have you ever heard of the word `steelman`?
His argument is that there is no evidence suggesting Dupont buried the hemp industry, despite Hemp's new found absence paved the way for dupont. ( Dupont is also known to be one of the worlds leading polluters. )
if you ask me, the opposing arguments come from places of doubt. My claim is hemp is the best plant ever and everything it produces is impressive.How come others don't share your view, including those big companies? Again, you're not recognizing the opposing arguments.
You still seem to think the burden of proof is on me, but more like I should be the one to deal out counter arguments to MY OWN claims.
Yes, that's how it works. You need to demonstrate that you've understood the counter arguments and came to your own conclusions after fairly weighing the evidence from all sides. Or are you saying you haven't studied the counter arguments, haven't studied the evidence from all sides, and haven't fairly weighted the evidence before coming to your conclusions? If so, do you see why I might think that's a problem?
You need to do your own research.
You admit I posted evidence but it's insufficient. You also think this subject is theoretical when it's really political and economic.
The burden of proof is on you, if you even want proof. When I want proof, I get up and get it myself, while you sit around waiting for service.
The reason why it's worth looking up potential counterarguments is over the room to test the validity of your beliefs. If you only look up things that support your own argument then it looks to onlookers like cherry-picking.
The reason why it's worth looking up potential counterarguments is over the room to test the validity of your beliefs. If you only look up things that support your own argument then it looks to onlookers like cherry-picking.
For theoretical or the unknown, sure.
There are no claims countering any of hemp's use cases as far as I can tell.
Initially Legga said the burden of proof is on me, over your question "why not now and not sooner or later"
He also argues I never stated my case. So by his logic I failed to state my case AND the burden of proof is on me. Doesn't make sense.
Turncoat summarized it quite well.
To clarify, I did not say that people are correct if they post counter arguments to their claims. I said that they are likely incorrect if they have only looked into arguments that support their beliefs. Demonstrating an understanding of the counter arguments and evidence to the contrary provides some rationale that the person is not simply looking for evidence to support their foregone conclusions but instead formed their opinion from a neutral, unbiased standpoint. I'm saying this is a minimal requirement for rational people to take you seriously, and you haven't demonstrated even that.
As for your claim that it's just me saying this: Not just me; it's all of science. For example, you may check here what the typical summary paragraph for Nature is:
https://www.nature.com/documents/nature-summary-paragraph.pdf
Notice, in particular, the introduction to the field, the more detailed background, problem formulation in terms of the broader field, tying your results to the general context, and the broader perspective. Your abstract would tick off only the light blue and green boxes.
You can also google `why is literature review important?`, and you will be provided with ample reasons, such as those listed in this one:
https://www.econtentpro.com/blog/the-literature-review/55
Credibility
Perhaps one of the most evident perks of crafting a thorough literature review is the fact that you will establish your credibility with the reader, and in doing so, you become an authority on the topic. Think about it; scholars will be scarcely convinced if you fail to demonstrate that you’re knowledgeable and qualified to contribute to the general academic conversation. Be careful not to write the review as if you’re biased in favor of certain arguments over others, especially because the basis of good and trustworthy research is the consideration of varying theoretical perspectives. In other words, your literature review should offer a critical analysis that examines every viewpoint and reasoning. In doing so, you will also capture the attention of several researchers whom may have otherwise seen your paper as yet another contribution aligned with disparate theories.
You're not arguing against me. You're arguing against the scientific method. I'm happy to defend the scientific methodology more, if you wish me to. None of this is my `personal belief.` Call it unoriginal, but I'd be willing to bet my chips in a process that has been validated over hundreds of years and deemed the most consistently accurate method of getting to the truth as of yet. If you happen to be right, I want to know, so we can debunk the scientific method and revolutionize science and basic epistemology.
Inq used to say the same thing. I personally don't burden others with having to proven anything, because I'll confirm their claims myself.
My claim is hemp is the most useful plant in the world, and it's output is impressive.
So basically you're just going to state you're right and expect people to confirm that you're right? You have every right to do that, but then rational people have no reason to take your claims seriously and you're also at odds with the scientific method. If you're fine with that, then go ahead.
You're assuming this thread is theoretical, which it isn't. Hemp's quality and what it can do is known to us.
I am unconvinced of the parts about a global oil company conspiracy, etc, not so much what hemp can and can't do.
Says you.
Not me; all of science says so. I'm just acting on behalf of science.
Yet another assumption, which is why Occam's razor would suggest I'm right.
Also it's not my job to provide opposing arguments when I give credit where it's due.
Would you agree with me that it's more likely that, after someone demonstrates that they have understood the entire field of study and all opposing views, and demonstrated how their own view places itself within this broader field and is not at conflict with the opposing evidence, that they are more likely to be right than they were before they demonstrated that they were knowledgeable about the field? I.e., would you agree that someone knowledgeable and thus qualified to contribute to the general conversation is more likely to be right than someone who is not knowledgeable about the topic? (Notice the careful use of "more likely" instead of "is right")
Not really. In reality most interactions are forward and progressive. Those who require counter arguments to everything and expect otherd to confirm everything for them, will learn later than sooner.
I addressed that already with an explination.
Hemp isn't as cheap as it would've been, and to date the hydro cell is the best solution.
Hemp wouldn't be more profitable.
You don't understand marketing. It's basically supply and demand. The more of the commodity, the cheaper it will be, due to the demand. Oil companies contend with other oil companies. The price of oil never goes down, because it is a limited resource. Hemp is obtainable in 3 months, and can be obtainable daily.
Is your argument that hemp would be way more useful, more accessible, and also cheaper, but somehow it wouldn't make it more profitable for non-oil companies? You're right that I don't understand your argument anymore, and your stubborness in refusing to admit basic flaws in your epistemology isn't helping. Help me understand, and I may even agree with you.
His argument is that there is no evidence suggesting Dupont buried the hemp industry, despite Hemp's new found absence paved the way for dupont. ( Dupont is also known to be one of the worlds leading polluters. )
Alright. That's fair.
TC shared my view. His questions is also different than yours. You still don't seem to understand what happened here.
You need to do your own research.
You admit I posted evidence but it's insufficient. You also think this subject is theoretical when it's really political and economic.
The burden of proof is on you, if you even want proof. When I want proof, I get up and get it myself, while you sit around waiting for service.
The burden of proof is on me for what? Can you summarize the basic idea behind the burden of proof, to demonstrate that you understand what it means?
Btw, what makes you think I assume that this subject is theoretical?
