36 ms·

You want to hang a label on my arguments - conspiracy theories, 'absolute relativist' (whatever that is) rather than engaging with the arguments. Nor do you ac

You want to hang a label on my arguments - conspiracy theories, 'absolute relativist' (whatever that is) rather than engaging with the arguments. Nor do you acknowledge the hypocrisy of your position (that you want to force others to do as you say, even though you don't know 'the truth'). You would be a tyrant. If you were to succeed, all those you forced would rightfully seek to de-throne you, and replace your 'rule by science' with rule by principles of their own: Jesus, Marxism, etc. All the while everyone would be missing the point that one cannot force others to accept their (self proclaimed) enlightened view of 'right'/'truth'. Either the truth is self-evident, demonstrable, or one ought to be able to tolerate a variety of opinions.

oblio 2y ago
The truth is demonstrable and since reality is complex, demonstrating it can be a life long pursuit. You are a climate change skeptic, which puts you against the scientific consensus which I agree with, which should have ended this discussion a long time ago. I've engaged with your arguments more than I should have, I'm not going to change your mind. I should have actually ended this discussion at "science can be bought" bit, which was a prima facie fallacy for climate change, when climate change deniers HAVE THE MOST MONEY, WHICH I HAVE POINTED OUT REPEATEDLY. So basically you were accusing the weaker and poorer party of buying science while the more powerful and richer party did... What exactly? :-)))) LOOOL. Logic, there is little. Have a nice day.
- verisimi 2y ago
  But you have not demonstrated the truth to yourself - so you are instead comforting yourself by aligning with the "scientific consensus". This is a religious position. You have failed to engage with me, as you are not putting forward a personal position - you are simply saying 'scientific consensus', as if deference to scientific opinion is the truth. But it is your belief system - you are verifying nothing. You merely pay lip service to the scientific method, while reading this or that. This is no different to other religious positions, that are not grounded in empirical observation - such as Christianity or Marxism.

oblio 2y ago

The truth is demonstrable and since reality is complex, demonstrating it can be a life long pursuit. You are a climate change skeptic, which puts you against the scientific consensus which I agree with, which should have ended this discussion a long time ago. I've engaged with your arguments more than I should have, I'm not going to change your mind. I should have actually ended this discussion at "science can be bought" bit, which was a prima facie fallacy for climate change, when climate change deniers HAVE THE MOST MONEY, WHICH I HAVE POINTED OUT REPEATEDLY. So basically you were accusing the weaker and poorer party of buying science while the more powerful and richer party did... What exactly? :-)))) LOOOL. Logic, there is little. Have a nice day.

verisimi 2y ago
But you have not demonstrated the truth to yourself - so you are instead comforting yourself by aligning with the "scientific consensus". This is a religious position. You have failed to engage with me, as you are not putting forward a personal position - you are simply saying 'scientific consensus', as if deference to scientific opinion is the truth. But it is your belief system - you are verifying nothing. You merely pay lip service to the scientific method, while reading this or that. This is no different to other religious positions, that are not grounded in empirical observation - such as Christianity or Marxism.