|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Jan 23, 2010 4:31 pm |
|
re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: That Human Activity is a Significant Cause of Global Warming. |
| abbeboulah
| |
Among the points that seem to be consistently missed: my insistence that a) we on this forum do not have the means of producing the evidence needed to unequivocally establish the truth of this or that proposition, and b) that it is therefore the ‘wrong question’ to discuss, when the real problem we could and should argue about is what our actions should be. (This may be because essentially the same discussion is now going on in two different threads).
It seems rather pointless, however, to argue any such questions with someone who has convincingly demonstrated a firmly made-up mind and unwillingness to provide support for his position, hiding behind the rhetorical etiquette point of obligation of providing burden of proof while insisting on rigorous scientific evidence of ‘tight causal chain’ of effects. Is it possible that such a stalwart defender of scientific rigor does not know of Popper’s demonstration that it is impossible to conclusively prove the truth of a hypothesis no matter how much supporting evidence is assembled (the fallacy of inductive reasoning) -- but perfectly possible to show by contrary evidence that it is NOT true? And that it therefore would be as plausible, if not more so, to ask for contrary evidence as it is to insist on supporting data? No: here the rigorous scientific debater evades the question by insisting that according to the burden of proof rule, he does not have to prove anything? It seems implausible and impolite to even suspect such an all-knowing person of such unfamiliarity with the logic of science -- but then: what is the intention behind pretending so?
The discussion also seems pointless because to someone whose scientific rigor is amply demonstrated by his wholesale dismissal of collections of information like Wikipedia (“useless...throw it out” etc.) not on the grounds of any flaws in the data it purveys but on the basis of the supposed ideological stance of its editors, it appears that no evidence or data would be acceptable that contradicts his made-up mind. Would the same reasoning pattern allow some evil environmentalist to argue -- since there is some evidence for it; and the slip of the tongue ‘show me the money ‘ opens even the most impartial mind to such vile heretical thoughts -- that most of the opposition against adopting measures aimed at reducing the impact of humanity’s activities on the environment is promoted and financed by the entities that are now making the most money from the continued sawing off the branch? Far be it from us to even entertain such ideas.
I urge once more: let’s hear some suggestions about what ought to be done (instead of the steps that seem so objectionable), and discuss those. This particular debate, I'm afraid, won’t help or resolve anything.Private Reply to abbeboulah (new win) |
|
| |
|
