> Yep, science is fallible, but it's far and away the most reliable thing we have to understand our nature and forecast our future. Again, if I have to actually

> Yep, science is fallible, but it's far and away the most reliable thing we have to understand our nature and forecast our future. Again, if I have to actually articulate an argument on why this is, I'm afraid were at such different positions that I'm not going to be able to convince you that science is always more reliable than religion. Two issues here: 1. You have still missed my point about how faith relates to science and understanding. Please, read it more carefully and try to understand what I'm saying. 2. Regarding your claim that science is always more reliable than religion, you are neglecting a crucial problem: there are issues about which science, by definition, cannot provide answers. I don't know if you are unaware of this, disagree with it, or are just taking it for granted, but you are riding roughshod over this crucially important point. It must not be taken for granted in a discussion about the reliability and utility of science. > You're asking for sources I just reread my previous comment, and nowhere did I ask for any sources. What are you talking about? > and claiming my argument is too general In the last comment I asked three simple questions: "What kind of science? Carried out by whom? Under what circumstances?" In the comment before that I asked another very simple question: ""How many dissenting scientists do you require to conclude that the matter is not settled beyond debate?" Are you actually unwilling to answer them? These are not trick questions designed to trap you--they are simply intended to clarify the argument so we don't talk past each other. If you refuse to answer them, you must not be willing to have a serious discussion. > yet you provided nothing of the sort for your own original argument Please be more specific. I'm willing to have a serious discussion with you, and, within reason, I'm willing to find sources for my claims. (Note: no one else is watching this conversation. It's just you and me now. My only interest is in the truth.) > I could link you the hundreds upon thousands of scientific reports/sources that support climate change/global warming There's no need to do that; I'm well aware of how numerous they are. Please understand this: that is not the issue. Something that is at issue is the vagueness of your claims. For example, "support climate change/global warming" is not a specific claim: do you mean that they support the claim that the climate is changing? That the globe is warming? Or do you mean they support the claim that humans are the primary cause of climate change and/or global warming? These are two distinct claims, and failure to distinguish between them is a chief reason that most discussions about the issue fail to get anywhere. > but I'm not going to do that and condone the constant goalpost moving you demonstrate in every discussion I've seen you have on HN. Frankly, when I read this kind of statement from you, I begin to feel like you're not discussing in good faith. I am not digging through your comment history to make ad hominems. I am trying to make specific points, regardless of who I am speaking with. Adding to that the fact that you are ignoring my very simple, specific questions and instead making personal attacks and implying malfeasance on my part--this makes it very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt. > At this point in time, if you aren't taking the minimal amount of responsibility needed to listen to what is likely one of the most important problems of our lifetime, you have your head stuck in the sand. That's a true disappointment because it seems that you have the intelligence necessary to comprehend it. Thanks for that backwards compliment! Well, not really, because you also insulted me and made a completely unfounded assumption about me. You see, by jumping to the conclusion that I have not done any research, and doing so in a way that implies irresponsibility on my part, you have revealed your enormous personal bias on the topic. In your mind, anyone who disagrees with you is willfully ignorant, lacks common sense, and is unable to think critically. These are your words, not mine. This intellectual hubris is quite common today, and it's largely responsible for the inability to have calm, rational discussions and disagreements about anything important. Please note that I have not insulted you or accused you of failures or flaws in character just because you disagree with me. I have asked simple, straightforward questions, and instead of answering them, you have resorted to personal attacks. Tell me, if you were an impartial observer of our discussion, which one of us would you accuse of willful ignorance and lack of critical thinking? Which one of us would you say was acting close-mindedly? It just floors me that you imply that you are such a rational, objective, critical thinker, and explicitly accuse me of being the opposite, yet you're the one dodging my questions and refusing to have a simple, calm, rational discussion. It's an interesting paradox: from one perspective, you have great faith, because you don't consider it necessary to entertain any challenges to your beliefs--you accept them at face value. On the other hand, if you refuse to entertain any challenges to your beliefs, how secure are you in them, really? Do you refuse to challenge them because you have underlying doubts and fear what it would mean if they were found untrue? Are you so emotionally invested in them, are they such a part of your identity, that you cannot see past them? I don't know what's in your heart; only you do. But if you are really interested in the truth, then I welcome further discussion with you.