4 ms·

He's saying that discussing a scientific theory requires more than just "my opinion is that it's all bunkum."

• nickff 10y ago
  What type of refutation is expected when debating the validity of a theory? What is the standard for a qualifying theory? Even if you have a high standard in the first case, and a low standard in the second, I can find a citation for almost any proposition, but there's usually no point to doing so because the people you argue against will just find a different paper to support their prior beliefs.[1] My basic issue is that it seems mikeash is trying to impose their arbitrary standard on others. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
  • rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    Ultimately it doesn't matter because equating opinions to actions is like debating the difference between a recipe and a steaming plate of risotto. If you want to help prevent climate change, put up solar panels, get an electric car and hook it up to a renewable grid, eat less meat, fly less, whatever, just do something, because arguing with strangers over the Internet changes nothing at all. My comment has no effect on climate change either.
  • hnhg 10y ago
    I guess more than just saying "this is bunkum" - I'm talking about examining the evidence and analytical techniques on both sides and engaging in debate rather than shutting the other side down, etc. Just citing stuff is a superficial level of debate, but for non-experts like us maybe that's all we can muster. In that case, we have to acknowledge that.