4 ms·

That’s my point. Believing in anything is optional - except for hard scientific facts that have been proven experimentally to a “believable” level relative to t

That’s my point. Believing in anything is optional - except for hard scientific facts that have been proven experimentally to a “believable” level relative to the other side which is presenting anecdotal evidence. Everything can be wrong. Even theory of gravitation. That’s besides the point.

ebg13 8y ago
> Believing in anything is optional - except... Except nothing. > hard scientific facts that have been proven experimentally Science isn't in the business of proving things. Science develops explanatory models that account for known evidence. Saying that science proves anything is super wrong and leads to all kinds of problems.
- spectramax 8y ago
  Fair, you are absolutely correct. Science is in building models about how nature works. Mathematics is in the business of proving, I guess. I think we are engaging in unproductive pedantry while going away from my original point. I want to emphasize my point again - we have 2 arguments. Argument A and argument B. A is presenting scientific evidence, in your corrected terms - presenting a model of climate change. Argument B is anecdotal evidence. The fact that they are both argued on the same stage gives the audience (who may not know anything about A or B) a false assurance that both A and B are arguable and therefore, they are on the stage. It is fine for casual conversations, I am speaking about large debates that we still fucking have about whether Earth is flat. It is equivalent of "Trolling" and should not be entertained.
  - samiru 8y ago
    Many times the consensus has provided scientific evidence (e.g. geocentric model) and has still been wrong. For some reason, I feel that something similar is going on with the climate debate. Mix money, politics and some aspects of religion and one just might arrive to the place where we are in today.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

ebg13 8y ago

> Believing in anything is optional - except... Except nothing. > hard scientific facts that have been proven experimentally Science isn't in the business of proving things. Science develops explanatory models that account for known evidence. Saying that science proves anything is super wrong and leads to all kinds of problems.

spectramax 8y ago
Fair, you are absolutely correct. Science is in building models about how nature works. Mathematics is in the business of proving, I guess. I think we are engaging in unproductive pedantry while going away from my original point. I want to emphasize my point again - we have 2 arguments. Argument A and argument B. A is presenting scientific evidence, in your corrected terms - presenting a model of climate change. Argument B is anecdotal evidence. The fact that they are both argued on the same stage gives the audience (who may not know anything about A or B) a false assurance that both A and B are arguable and therefore, they are on the stage. It is fine for casual conversations, I am speaking about large debates that we still fucking have about whether Earth is flat. It is equivalent of "Trolling" and should not be entertained.
- samiru 8y ago
  Many times the consensus has provided scientific evidence (e.g. geocentric model) and has still been wrong. For some reason, I feel that something similar is going on with the climate debate. Mix money, politics and some aspects of religion and one just might arrive to the place where we are in today.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]