4 ms·
I too would trust a climate scientist as a legitimate authority on climate change over a religious leader or a PR person – but that's not what I'm discussing.
by eivarv 5y ago
I too would trust a climate scientist as a legitimate authority on climate change over a religious leader or a PR person – but that's not what I'm discussing.
I'm saying global warming isn't true because scientists believe it to be true (this would be a fallacious argument).
- entropicdrifter 5y agoThat would be a fallacious argument because it does not follow (non-sequitur) that the beliefs of scientists can cause shifts in reality, but nobody was arguing that. They were arguing that it is logical to conclude that climate change is real because the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists (the actual domain experts) is that it is real.
- eivarv 5y agoThat's not an argument that deals with whether climate change is real or not – but whether it's reasonable to believe it is, based on one's own lack of understanding in combination with making (reasonable) assumptions.
- entropicdrifter 5y agoIt is an argument that the consensus of the overwhelming majority of experts on any given subject with such a consensus is strong evidence for that position.