RE: Modeling.

RE: Modeling. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Modeling. (9/9/2013 5:00:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Denying AGW isn't denying that the climate is changing, but that it's humans that are driving the change. Which is all neat from a faith based perspective. This is what leonine keeps trying to say. If you're looking at this from scientific standpoint, you don't "deny" stuff. What you do is propose an alternative theory that fits the facts... ALL the facts... better than the existing theory. Insofar as the ape thing, I could be wrong but I don't think any scientist believes we "evolved from apes" unless you're talking SO far back in the evolutionary tree that you could say that about anything. Keep in mind that pretty much all life as we know it is just a tiny little branch on a huge tree. Humans and grass and apes are all much more alike genetically than some of the freaky stuff on those other branches. I get what you are saying. But, what I was saying was that just because someone doesn't believe part of the narrative, doesn't they disagree with the entire thing. That is a typical attack strategy, though. Look at the US political landscape. A bill is up for a vote that has 10 different categories of impact. Representative A votes against it because of one policy. The next time Representative A is up for re-election, his/her opponent will use that vote to attempt to discredit Rep A, accusing Rep A of being against any of the policies that are actually popular. It's a disingenuous strategy, but it's typical.

mnottertail -> RE: Modeling. (9/9/2013 7:21:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: leonine quote: ORIGINAL: brokendom111 Yup, build a conclusion around a belief. In science, the belief is built around the facts, and often involves people changing their views completely because of new evidence. Views that change due to evidence in support of the facts or evidence that changes the facts? I find your usage, "In science, the belief is", to be quite religious. Argument by equivocation and more .... The fact: atoms are mostly empty space, you should be able to put your hand through the wall, it is mostly empty space. Adtoms are like a pudding (based on the fact that you cant put your hand thru the wall. No, that theory is incorrect. Atoms have a hard shell.......also incorrect. If wood is dead, why are the atoms still moving? The end facts (the emprical observations) must be accounted for, and until you understand exact mechanisms to get from A to B, some of the propositional theories are going to end up untenable.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.222656E-02