Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral
Not really. The myth of the objective scientist is a pernicious fallacy. All of us come to the table with preconceptions and theories. We can't function without them. Karl Popper was teaching a philosophy class once; he began the class by asking them to observe for several minutes, and then report to him what they observed. Naturally, they asked him what he wanted them to observe; of course, that was the point: an unprejudiced mind is a blank mind. Without some preconcieved notions to guide our senses, we cannot truly see anything.
|
Perhaps. However, science is debatable. That's what makes it science. We question everything presented by science. We don't just take it and say it cannot be wrong. Evolution can be wrong. Our understanding of the universe is constantly being proven wrong with new research and new data.
Religion CANNOT be wrong. Religion by definition is faith and not subject to debate. Gorebal warming is a religion because "the debate is over."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral
So: religion: see what you believe
science: ditto
humanity: ditto
|
religion: see what you believe
science: ditto...but can be updated
humanity: ditto...maybe...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral
IMHO, while human induced global warming is not a terribly well supported theory, and is certainly overhyped by the media, it is science, just as much as geocentrism, phlogiston, and aether. It may be wrong, or maybe not. But accusing opponents of all sorts of misdeeds and idiocy seems silly to me. Leave that to the politicians. (not directed to you, gunnut, just part of my general rant  ) |
Gorebal warming is as valid a theory as nuclear winter is. It's alarmism. It's like calling sacchrin a carcenogen because a test in which a lab rat that's fed nothing but 30 times his body weight with this stuff every single day developed some abnormal growth.
We "could" change the climate of the earth. After all some bacteria changed the atmospheric content...with 200 million years of work. At our current rate, we "could" change the climate in a few million or a few dozen million years. But to say the "damage to the climate will be irreversable within this century" is preposterous.