Watch New Movie 'An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power' and Get Full Refund via PayPal @ Intrepid Travel

Related Stores

intrepidtravel.com

• 1
• 2
• 3

• • • 

      Danstar on 10/08/2017 - 19:43

      They had scientific facts not so long ago about the sun revolving around us ;)

• 

  divergent on 09/08/2017 - 22:50

  -2

  Through continued observation and experimentation we should conclude that the sky is blue, but it's not, not really, it's just a reflection. Likewise, all scientific theories can only ever be a 'best conclusion' based on the evidence available to us, which makes it less about truth than it is about faith. History has proven that theories can change when new evidence presents itself, so it's foolhardy to believe that what is considered likely is also the truth. What's more, absolute truths are elusive, and perhaps even impossible to discover through subjective observation. Take the observations of quantum particles, which to some observers appear as singular points, but to others as waves. How can you possibly formulate truths from contradictive observations? Climate change is no different. There is a science for it, but there is also a science against it. Without truth, we are just left with believing the most popular theory, which should be idiocy to a logical mind, but isn't seen as such because the logical mind bows down to the feeling mind more often than anyone cares to admit. In the end, we choose what we want to believe, because deciding a path to call truth makes us feel better and more in control. Science is more like religion than you know.

  • 

    Dirichlet on 10/08/2017 - 00:57

    +3

    Through continued observation and experimentation we should conclude that the sky is blue, but it's not, not really, it's just a reflection.

    Technically, it's due to Rayleigh scattering of light, not reflection.

    History has proven that theories can change when new evidence presents itself, so it's foolhardy to believe that what is considered likely is also the truth.

    If new evidence presents itself, science contains the framework in which new evidence can be incorporated objectively.

    One of the key things to understand is the scientific process:
    1. Make a hypothesis. (e.g. force is proportional to acceleration)
    2. Collect data (e.g. vary acceleration, measure force for a number of points)
    3. Compute the probability of the hypothesis given the data. From Bayes theorem, P(H | D) = P(D | H)P(H)/P(D,H), where H denotes the hypothesis you're trying to test and D is the data. In the end, P(H | D) expresses the degree of belief, or rather, the distribution of the hypothesis given the data. If the distribution is tight (like a Gaussian distribution (bell curve) with low variance), then there is high confidence that your hypothesis is likely the right one. Say now, if you have new data points (new evidence, D'), then we can incorporate that as well. The probability of our existing hypothesis given new evidence and old evidence is P(H | D', D) = P(D' | H)P(H | D)/P(D').

    So, even if you have conflicting data, it doesn't matter. Science allows the existing hypothesis to be tested in a systematic way, regardless of what one's belief is. The new data might reduce the confidence level of the previous hypothesis if it's conflicting. If that is indeed how it turns out, then so be it. The thing is, in the research on climate science thus far, the data continues to associate a high confidence in the hypothesis made by an overwhelming majority of climate scientists around the world. If you're sceptical, by all means, conduct your own independent research. The data is available for anyone to explore and to perform the corresponding scientific process (http://berkeleyearth.org/); there are many other independent sources of data as well (e.g. from NASA etc.). (Though, of course, you would need some mathematical background to do so)

    Most importantly, many independent research by different scientist around the world —> document scientific process, share results and their own analysis to reputable scientific journals (e.g. nature) —> overwhelming majority of the results from vast number of papers agreed —> scientific consensus. The more independent research, the better.

    Also, science is nothing like religion at all, as it contains a reasoning framework for incorporating evidence.

  • 

    SBOB on 10/08/2017 - 09:16

    we should conclude that the sky is blue, but it's not, not really, it's just a reflection

    and with that, we can deduce your ability to provide scientific basis to your arguments

• 

  Elite on 10/08/2017 - 17:18

  I think these are far more interesting & offer way more perspective & are thankfully also free : https://youtu.be/L7wQp0Ir5Vc & https://www.youtube.com/user/PragerUniversity/search?query=c… & https://youtu.be/TCy_UOjEir0 & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI

  • 

    SBOB on 10/08/2017 - 18:03

    +4

    I too like to get all my scientific knowledge from random videos on YouTube which re-enforce any beliefs I may already have…………………

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 10/08/2017 - 19:17

      Worked wonders for your dictionary knowledge of 'reinforce'!

      • 

        SBOB on 10/08/2017 - 19:49

        While less common, its a valid alternative spelling.. (though I likely should remove the hyphen)

        But hey, this whole thread is full of people ignoring alternatives information ;)

        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reenforce

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 10/08/2017 - 20:05

        @SBOB:
        September 19th is Talk Like a Pirate Day. Stop opening your presents early.

• 

  Oofy Doofy on 24/08/2017 - 22:42

  A new pre antibiotic age is upon us. That along with mutated viruses, are the biggest threat to mankind before anything related to global warming.

  Keep letting stooges on the world stage occupy your mind with tales.

  Big kiss X

• 

  davicta on 27/08/2017 - 16:38

  Anyone got their refund yet?

  • 

    shortgum on 02/09/2017 - 00:10

    +1

    no. about two weeks since mailing. wonder who to chase

    • 

      davicta on 02/09/2017 - 04:30

      Same, I haven't heard or got anything from them.

      • 

        shortgum on 14/09/2017 - 02:34

        we received a refund as well. but it's only one refund. both of us couple went together and send the movie tickets separately on each person. not sure they find out it is like you two are together and refund only one ticket.

        did you do two tickets refunds or only one for yourself?

        now I feel wasted for watching the movie even its half price if only one refund

      • 

        davicta on 14/09/2017 - 11:35

        @leehungfei: just one ticket for myself. Did you use two different PayPal?

      • 

        shortgum on 15/09/2017 - 02:30

        @davicta: yes. have sent the mail individually with two different paypal. our same session n seat number next to each other so they obvious know this two mail are from us if they look at it. now feeling piss all from Intrepid if this is the reason they refund one person only.

        We only go watch this because of its cashback for watching not we have to paid a portion of it. not mention extra $2 on mailing.!!

• 

  wchang235 on 04/09/2017 - 20:47

  I'm still waiting also

• 

  Aeroturnip on 06/09/2017 - 14:45

  Nothing on my end either, the offer is running until the 10th of September, could be that they wait till the end of it to process entries

• 

  Mnke on 08/09/2017 - 15:55

  +1

  I got my refund today.

  • 

    davicta on 08/09/2017 - 23:33

    +1

    Yeah, same here.

• 

  wchang235 on 15/09/2017 - 08:42

  +1

  Received mine 3 days ago

• 1
• 2
• 3