How to Debate a Science Denier

[Sergeant Gleed]

Keep in mind that science is never "settled." The scientific process, by definition, requires always being open to new discoveries that may change the way an issue is perceived.

The "deniers" label is anti-science itself because it suggests climate science is "settled," therefore anything outside the currently accepted norm is anathema. That puts a big damper on further research.

Instead, scientific theories need to be put across as a "general consensus," one that's subject to change.

Climate Science has entered the realm of politics, and because of that, it's no longer a pure science. That doesn't mean it's not factual, it just means the theories have taken on a meaning different from real science.

The true scientific process gathers as many facts as possible and then forms a theory based on those facts.
But, do you know what it's called when the conclusion is presented first and then facts are selected based on their support of the preconceived conclusion? It's called "religion."

Science us often settled.

Galilro's observations of the phases of Venus settled, forever, the fate of the egocentric model of the solar system.

The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation settled, forever the fate of the "Steady State" model of the universe.

The fact that human embryos are unique and distinct human individual from the completion of the conception process is settled embryology.

The agenda of the globalcoolingwarmingchanging Hoaxers has been a known fraud fir decades now. Thst too is settled.

[Chris]

Keep in mind that science is never "settled." The scientific process, by definition, requires always being open to new discoveries that may change the way an issue is perceived.

The "deniers" label is anti-science itself because it suggests climate science is "settled," therefore anything outside the currently accepted norm is anathema. That puts a big damper on further research.

Instead, scientific theories need to be put across as a "general consensus," one that's subject to change.

Climate Science has entered the realm of politics, and because of that, it's no longer a pure science. That doesn't mean it's not factual, it just means the theories have taken on a meaning different from real science.

The true scientific process gathers as many facts as possible and then forms a theory based on those facts.
But, do you know what it's called when the conclusion is presented first and then facts are selected based on their support of the preconceived conclusion? It's called "religion."

Well said. Just don't forget that the solution to Hume's problem of induction is Popperian falsification. Science advances by falsification.

[Chris]

Well, the scientist is supposed to value the truth, but the history of science is littered with charlatans and hoaxers. The mist recent of which are almost always a connected tk the "Climate Change" charades.

I mean, we have their e-mails documenting their strategic ing a response to the unfortunate reality thst global warming stopped and began to cool, and every moron termite - headed fool rejected the obvious meaning of the phrase "hide the decline" because the cult beliefs are far m9r important to them than reality.

I was just reading, think it was Manent on Péguy, that science values method and this inversion results in the scientist playing God, true especially of modern historians.

[Lummy]

Someone who uses science accurately to refute a Global Warming Cultists hysterical rantings.

They are using science to deny, you see.

Well then, those are science truthers.

Somebody needs to tell Chris and Dr Who as they both seem to have taken a header down the rabbit hole.

[Hoosier8]

It's what happens when science is politicized. Science is supposed to be value free.

Well, there is always ego, and funding to think about. Lots of ego and at least over a trillion poured into only proving CO2 is a control knob. As in much of science of the past, consensus is held onto for decades even after the science has been proven wrong.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Well, there is always ego, and funding to think about. Lots of ego and at least over a trillion poured into only proving CO2 is a control knob. As in much of science of the past, consensus is held onto for decades even after the science has been proven wrong.

Scientific consensus has nothing to do with perpetuating a hoax valued at trillions of dollars and the control of the minds of hundreds of millions of total idiots.

[Chris]

Well, there is always ego, and funding to think about. Lots of ego and at least over a trillion poured into only proving CO2 is a control knob. As in much of science of the past, consensus is held onto for decades even after the science has been proven wrong.

Certainly, that is how consensus is built. By joining it you earn reputation and funding. Thomas Kuhn explained better in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

[Chris]

Well then, those are science truthers.

Somebody needs to tell Chris and Dr Who as they both seem to have taken a header down the rabbit hole.

Huh?

[Hoosier8]

Scientific consensus has nothing to do with perpetuating a hoax valued at trillions of dollars and the control of the minds of hundreds of millions of total idiots.

Except that it is the narrative that is supposed to convince you.

[Hoosier8]

Certainly, that is how consensus is built. By joining it you earn reputation and funding. Thomas Kuhn explained better in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Even when the science is in error.