User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61

Thread: How to Debate a Science Denier

  1. #21
    Points: 458,185, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 62.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397062
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    149,118
    Points
    458,185
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    15,394
    Thanked 44,636x in 32,846 Posts
    Mentioned
    1718 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier8 View Post
    Even when the science is in error.
    Yes, especially so for the consensus tends to preserve error long past its falsification.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  2. #22
    Points: 2,530, Level: 11
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 120
    Overall activity: 10.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    mamooth's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    220
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    877
    Points
    2,530
    Level
    11
    Thanks Given
    2
    Thanked 210x in 158 Posts
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FindersKeepers View Post
    Keep in mind that science is never "settled."
    But it is usually "settled enough".

    Example? Gravity. If any says it's not settled science, they're kind of nuts. Anyone claiming some science isn't settled is just plain wrong. Quibbling about the details doesn't change the settled nature of the fundamentals.

    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.
    By the same standard, criticizing flat-earthers is anti-science. It's not. It's common sense. Some ideas are just bad. Global warming denialism is in that category. Not because of politics, but because the hard data says so.

    The true scientific process gathers as many facts as possible and then forms a theory based on those facts.
    So, like mainstream climate science.

    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."
    And that's the chosen technique of the global warming deniers. At this stage, denialism is entirely religious in nature. And I can prove it.

    Deniers, first describe your theory about what is driving climate now, then list what near-term hard data could disprove it (that is, realistic data that could be collected within a few years). If your theory isn't falsifiable, it's psuedoscience. And I've never had a denier meet the challenge. Denier beliefs aren't falsifiable, so they're not science.

    In stark contrast, AGW theory could conceivably be falsified by many types of hard data, being that it's real science.
    Last edited by mamooth; 06-25-2019 at 10:06 PM.

  3. #23
    Points: 458,185, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 62.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397062
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    149,118
    Points
    458,185
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    15,394
    Thanked 44,636x in 32,846 Posts
    Mentioned
    1718 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    But it is usually "settled enough".

    Example? Gravity. If any says it's not settled science, they're kind of nuts. Anyone claiming some science isn't settled is just plain wrong. Quibbling about the details doesn't change the settled nature of the fundamentals.



    By the same standard, criticizing flat-earthers is anti-science. It's not. It's common sense. Some ideas are just bad. Global warming denialism is in that category. Not because of politics, but because the hard data says so.



    So, like mainstream climate science.


    And that's the chosen technique of the global warming deniers. At this stage, denialism is entirely religious in nature. And I can prove it.

    Deniers, first describe your theory about what is driving climate now, then list what near-term hard data could disprove it (that is, realistic data that could be collected within a few years). If your theory isn't falsifiable, it's psuedoscience. And I've never had a denier meet the challenge. Denier beliefs aren't falsifiable, so they're not science.

    In stark contrast, AGW theory could conceivably be falsified by many types of hard data, being that it's real science.


    Gravity is a fact, not a conclusion. Don't you know the difference?


    If AGW theory is scientific then according to modern science it must be falsifiable. Please explain to everyone how to falsify it. Tell us what AGW climatologists say about how it can be falsified specifically.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  4. #24
    Points: 125,374, Level: 85
    Level completed: 79%, Points required for next Level: 676
    Overall activity: 25.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    Dr. Who's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    861698
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    51,483
    Points
    125,374
    Level
    85
    Thanks Given
    4,202
    Thanked 3,958x in 2,709 Posts
    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lummy View Post
    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.
    Interesting, since I haven't posted in this thread until now. Are you sure you have the right thread?
    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

  5. #25
    Points: 16,110, Level: 30
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 340
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Hoosier8's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    3677
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,891
    Points
    16,110
    Level
    30
    Thanks Given
    320
    Thanked 3,668x in 2,447 Posts
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    But it is usually "settled enough".

    Example? Gravity. If any says it's not settled science, they're kind of nuts. Anyone claiming some science isn't settled is just plain wrong. Quibbling about the details doesn't change the settled nature of the fundamentals.



    By the same standard, criticizing flat-earthers is anti-science. It's not. It's common sense. Some ideas are just bad. Global warming denialism is in that category. Not because of politics, but because the hard data says so.



    So, like mainstream climate science.


    And that's the chosen technique of the global warming deniers. At this stage, denialism is entirely religious in nature. And I can prove it.

    Deniers, first describe your theory about what is driving climate now, then list what near-term hard data could disprove it (that is, realistic data that could be collected within a few years). If your theory isn't falsifiable, it's psuedoscience. And I've never had a denier meet the challenge. Denier beliefs aren't falsifiable, so they're not science.

    In stark contrast, AGW theory could conceivably be falsified by many types of hard data, being that it's real science.
    False equivalency. Logical fallacy, the bastion for true believers.

    You don't even realize the current CO2 centric hypothesis is not falsifiable.
    I was going to sell my guns to the government but you wouldn’t believe what came up during the background check

  6. #26
    Points: 33,699, Level: 44
    Level completed: 84%, Points required for next Level: 251
    Overall activity: 60.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    FindersKeepers's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    156095
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    11,429
    Points
    33,699
    Level
    44
    Thanks Given
    4,763
    Thanked 8,728x in 5,381 Posts
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    But it is usually "settled enough".
    Example? Gravity. If any says it's not settled science, they're kind of nuts. Anyone claiming some science isn't settled is just plain wrong. Quibbling about the details doesn't change the settled nature of the fundamentals.
    That's kind of what the leaders in Gallileo's day told him about his theory that the earth was round. Preposterous, they said -- after all -- it wasn't in line with their "settled science."

    So, like mainstream climate science.
    This is a relatively new theory and one that has a good share of reputable skeptics. Comparing the theory to a tested science, such as "gravity," is a bit silly.
    And that's the chosen technique of the global warming deniers. At this stage, denialism is entirely religious in nature. And I can prove it.
    It's religious on both sides. If you fail to see that, you're missing the greater picture.

    Deniers, first describe your theory about what is driving climate now, then list what near-term hard data could disprove it (that is, realistic data that could be collected within a few years). If your theory isn't falsifiable, it's psuedoscience. And I've never had a denier meet the challenge. Denier beliefs aren't falsifiable, so they're not science.
    Okay, I'm starting to get the idea that you don't have a clue as to what the actual science is. On either side. You're just regurgitating the rhetoric you've been spoon-fed. The very fact that you call other scientists "deniers" reduces your credibility. As I said, the issue has become religious on both sides -- both sides have developed cult attitudes about it. Unlike you, I have no need to call anyone names like "denier" or "alarmist" because we already know scientists on both sides have made mistakes and have had to correct their data and projections.
    “I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.”
    ~Leonardo da Vinci

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to FindersKeepers For This Useful Post:

    Chris (06-26-2019)

  8. #27
    Points: 66,712, Level: 63
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 2,038
    Overall activity: 53.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    stjames1_53's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    41453
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    24,352
    Points
    66,712
    Level
    63
    Thanks Given
    43,241
    Thanked 12,471x in 9,097 Posts
    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FindersKeepers View Post
    That's kind of what the leaders in Gallileo's day told him about his theory that the earth was round. Preposterous, they said -- after all -- it wasn't in line with their "settled science."



    This is a relatively new theory and one that has a good share of reputable skeptics. Comparing the theory to a tested science, such as "gravity," is a bit silly.


    It's religious on both sides. If you fail to see that, you're missing the greater picture.



    Okay, I'm starting to get the idea that you don't have a clue as to what the actual science is. On either side. You're just regurgitating the rhetoric you've been spoon-fed. The very fact that you call other scientists "deniers" reduces your credibility. As I said, the issue has become religious on both sides -- both sides have developed cult attitudes about it. Unlike you, I have no need to call anyone names like "denier" or "alarmist" because we already know scientists on both sides have made mistakes and have had to correct their data and projections.
    Show us the documents, in their studies, that factors in celestial mechanics.
    For waltky: http://quakes.globalincidentmap.com/
    "The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
    - Thucydides

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" B. Franklin
    Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum

  9. #28
    Points: 2,530, Level: 11
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 120
    Overall activity: 10.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    mamooth's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    220
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    877
    Points
    2,530
    Level
    11
    Thanks Given
    2
    Thanked 210x in 158 Posts
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Gravity is a fact, not a conclusion. Don't you know the difference?
    Sure. Newton's theory of gravity, modified a bit by relativity, is settled science. That's is inconvenient to the denier argument that there's no settled science, so you're trying to handwave it away.

    If AGW theory is scientific then according to modern science it must be falsifiable. Please explain to everyone how to falsify it. Tell us what AGW climatologists say about how it can be falsified specifically.
    I asked first. I'll take your mirror-trolling there as your admission that your beliefs are unfalsifiable, and thus pseudoscientific in nature.

    In contrast, I can name things that would falsify AGW theory, because it's actual science. Here are a few things, things that could be realistically measured within around a decade, that would falsify AGW theory.

    A lack of rising temperatures over the long term
    A lack of rising sea levels
    A lack of stratospheric cooling
    A lack of increase in backradiation
    A lack of increase in specific humidity
    Outgoing long wave radiation not decreasing in the GHG bands
    A lack of an atmospheric CO2 increase
    Showing CO2 doesn't really absorb IR
    Showing a source for the added heat that wasn't known before
    Showing climate has changed the same way in the past without human influence

  10. #29
    Points: 458,185, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 62.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397062
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    149,118
    Points
    458,185
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    15,394
    Thanked 44,636x in 32,846 Posts
    Mentioned
    1718 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    Sure. Newton's theory of gravity, modified a bit by relativity, is settled science. That's is inconvenient to the denier argument that there's no settled science, so you're trying to handwave it away.


    I asked first. I'll take your mirror-trolling there as your admission that your beliefs are unfalsifiable, and thus pseudoscientific in nature.

    In contrast, I can name things that would falsify AGW theory, because it's actual science. Here are a few things, things that could be realistically measured within around a decade, that would falsify AGW theory.

    A lack of rising temperatures over the long term
    A lack of rising sea levels
    A lack of stratospheric cooling
    A lack of increase in backradiation
    A lack of increase in specific humidity
    Outgoing long wave radiation not decreasing in the GHG bands
    A lack of an atmospheric CO2 increase
    Showing CO2 doesn't really absorb IR
    Showing a source for the added heat that wasn't known before
    Showing climate has changed the same way in the past without human influence

    Ah, so you didn't mean gravity but Newton's theory of it, which was modified drastically by Einstein, who predicted someone would come along and revise his theory. Science is not settled.

    My beliefs are not science--nor are yours.


    "A lack of rising temperatures over the long term" Then the warming hiatus for 16 years falsifies.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (06-26-2019)

  12. #30
    Points: 2,530, Level: 11
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 120
    Overall activity: 10.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    mamooth's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    220
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    877
    Points
    2,530
    Level
    11
    Thanks Given
    2
    Thanked 210x in 158 Posts
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FindersKeepers View Post
    That's kind of what the leaders in Gallileo's day told him about his theory that the earth was round. Preposterous, they said -- after all -- it wasn't in line with their "settled science."
    Galileo was the first to say the earth was round? Really?

    That bad history aside, scientists accepted Galileo quickly, as his data was good. It was the politically-driven religious fanatics, such as found in the denier cult, who rejected Galileo.

    This is a relatively new theory and one that has a good share of reputable skeptics. Comparing the theory to a tested science, such as "gravity," is a bit silly.
    In science, the simplest theory that explains all of the observed data is the accepted theory. That's currently AGW theory. If you want to change that, present a better theory. Complaining that the accepted theory isn't 100.00000% proven isn't science, it's just complaining.

    Okay, I'm starting to get the idea that you don't have a clue as to what the actual science is.
    Then tell me. Describe what your theory is regarding what is driving the fast warming now.

    This is where deniers usually run, being that they don't have a theory of any sort. All they have is contrarianism, and that's on their best day.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO