3 ms·

There is such a thing as consensus and mathematical proofs. The entire climate change debate is about the narrative of "why", not the science of "how". The chan

There is such a thing as consensus and mathematical proofs. The entire climate change debate is about the narrative of "why", not the science of "how". The change is real and happening, with the questions being: are humans having an effect and how much of an effect, with a follow up of *if we're having an effect then can we change it/reverse it". Science does move it forward because it's the foundation. The issue you're describing is someone not understanding science. Again this is like trying to use math when you don't understand it, or trying to talk if you don't understand the language. The basics must be agreed on for progress to be made. As for the rest of your comment, you're delving into the "question reality" philosophical aspect. And like I said, at that point, in regards to this HN thread, there is no need for a safe space because anything and everything is up for a debate.

tptacek 7y ago
No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that science is evolving and contentious and that as convenient as it is for people to declare victory and claim that science has settled and, in turn, settled the arguments they've found themselves in, science tends not to make any such claims. If you think that's not the case, and that, for instance, science has conclusively shown something that TGD safe-space people don't want to hear, I think it's likely that it's you that misunderstands what science is and how it works, not me.
- manigandham 7y ago
  I've explained this several times that facts and the narrative based on them are entirely different. The former is settled, otherwise it wouldn't be a fact. The latter is not, and is what the discussion is for. > "science has conclusively shown something that TGD safe-space people don't want to hear" This plays out in every single HN thread when controversial subjects come up. We just had one a few days ago about male and female brains. > "I think it's likely that it's you that misunderstands what science is and how it works, not me." That's interesting because I've said that understanding science is a prerequisite to understanding the consensus of objective truths while explaining how those truths are derived from the scientific method and proofs, yet you argue that it's irrelevant in your prior comments since it can all be questioned endlessly. So which is it? Either you understand it and there are objective truths or you question it all. Claiming that someone else doesn't understand it is doing exactly what you say can't be done as an argument. Or, perhaps, I do know what science is and how it works, and having a consistent argument shows the power of using science in discussions where both parties agree on the same principles of reality? Anyways, this seems to have run its course so I'll end it there.

tptacek 7y ago

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that science is evolving and contentious and that as convenient as it is for people to declare victory and claim that science has settled and, in turn, settled the arguments they've found themselves in, science tends not to make any such claims. If you think that's not the case, and that, for instance, science has conclusively shown something that TGD safe-space people don't want to hear, I think it's likely that it's you that misunderstands what science is and how it works, not me.

manigandham 7y ago
I've explained this several times that facts and the narrative based on them are entirely different. The former is settled, otherwise it wouldn't be a fact. The latter is not, and is what the discussion is for. > "science has conclusively shown something that TGD safe-space people don't want to hear" This plays out in every single HN thread when controversial subjects come up. We just had one a few days ago about male and female brains. > "I think it's likely that it's you that misunderstands what science is and how it works, not me." That's interesting because I've said that understanding science is a prerequisite to understanding the consensus of objective truths while explaining how those truths are derived from the scientific method and proofs, yet you argue that it's irrelevant in your prior comments since it can all be questioned endlessly. So which is it? Either you understand it and there are objective truths or you question it all. Claiming that someone else doesn't understand it is doing exactly what you say can't be done as an argument. Or, perhaps, I do know what science is and how it works, and having a consistent argument shows the power of using science in discussions where both parties agree on the same principles of reality? Anyways, this seems to have run its course so I'll end it there.