3 ms·

> For example, many naysayers to global warming present the evidence of cold weather on a particular day as a proof that global warming is a conspiracy. Look,

> For example, many naysayers to global warming present the evidence of cold weather on a particular day as a proof that global warming is a conspiracy. Look, if they're trying to bring in symbolic logic to prove something about global warming, namely, that humans are causing it, that's fundamentally misguided because causality is not provable. I'm not saying that I don't believe that humans are causing it, just that talking about causal relationships is outside the scope of what logic is meant for You can have a logically consistent worldview that the author would immediately discount as conspiracy garbage. Logical inconsistency is not the issue here. The issue is that the author doesn't like the set of assumptions that other people are making As an aside, expecting people to have completely consistent and justified sets of beliefs is completely out of touch with how people actually are. Anyone who's read some dostoevsky knows this

dclowd9901 2y ago
You’re correct that logical thinking falls short of proving human-caused global warming in and of itself, but you couple that with empirical evidence. Under all thinking roots logical thinking. Data and research only go so far: At some point, you have to try to take the evidence you have and apply it using logic. Indeed you need logic to even construct the studies in a way that they will yield useful results.
- matrix87 2y ago
  > Under all thinking roots logical thinking Hmm, is this something that you can prove with logic though?
  - dclowd9901 2y ago
    You can prove if A = B and B = C, A = C. I understand the example is contrived, but the point is you have a framework for making conclusions. All of the data in the world won’t help you if you can’t arrange its into a way to make a conclusion from it. This is how logic underpins everything. It’s sort of like physics. Everything is just physics at its basis.

dclowd9901 2y ago

You’re correct that logical thinking falls short of proving human-caused global warming in and of itself, but you couple that with empirical evidence. Under all thinking roots logical thinking. Data and research only go so far: At some point, you have to try to take the evidence you have and apply it using logic. Indeed you need logic to even construct the studies in a way that they will yield useful results.

matrix87 2y ago
> Under all thinking roots logical thinking Hmm, is this something that you can prove with logic though?
- dclowd9901 2y ago
  You can prove if A = B and B = C, A = C. I understand the example is contrived, but the point is you have a framework for making conclusions. All of the data in the world won’t help you if you can’t arrange its into a way to make a conclusion from it. This is how logic underpins everything. It’s sort of like physics. Everything is just physics at its basis.