danieLion wrote:All science is opinion. Presuming that everyone in the discussion believes in the validity of fact v. value or fact v. opinion false dicthotomies further obsfucates an all ready overly emotionlly charged topic.
LonesomeYogurt wrote:You're free to believe that all science is opinion and that all facts are opinions, but then you also forfeit your right to claim any authority in determining what is or isn't appropriate science.
You've got it backwards (and there's no need to remind me of my liberties--it betrays your emotionalism about climate change "science."). Understanding that science is just another word for knowledge de-mystifies reification of science, exposes dogmatic scientists, and establishes a basis for utilizing science in ways that keeps it as far away from politics as possible.
LonesomeYogurt wrote:Taking the stance of epistemological anarchism....
So you're back to mis-labelling me again? Do you not recall the last time you tried to accuse me of being an epistemological anarchist? Are you taking your apology back now?
danieLion wrote: Science does not seek conclusions. Science is about demonstrating which opinions are the currenty the best opinions with the available information. In the case of climate change "science" there is almost no information.
LonesomeYogurt wrote:Science is about making pragmatic predictions based on theories that demonstrate explanatory power in regards to the available data.
How is this different from what I wrote?
LonesomeYogurt wrote:The theory of anthropogenic climate change does this, and does it well.
Please tell me you at least
understand the difference between thoeries and hypotheses?
Humans have been on the scene approximately 10,000 years. The planet is approximately 4.5 billion years young. 10,000/4.5 billion equals 0.00000222222 which equals not enough information.
But it's worse that that. We've only have discrete statistical clilmatology measurements (not inferences) for about the last 150 years. 150/4.5 billion equals 0.000000033.
LonesomeYogurt wrote:Let's say a sinkhole opens up under my house tomorrow. Would the correct response be, "There's not enough data to show whether or not this sinkhole is going to continue expanding. Why, it only appeared this morning and the rock below me is over three billion years old!" No, the correct response would be, "Holy shit a sinkhole run!"
That's a very useless analogy. Your deductions and inductions would match the available evdidence in this case, unlike climate change "science."
LonesomeYogurt wrote:"The fact is....,
How do you define "fact".
LonesomeYogurt wrote:...the planet is warming, and we know for a fact that human beings are doing things that can be shown scientifically
How do you define "science"?
LonesomeYogurt wrote:...to create conditions that accelerate that warming. We know that...
How do you define "knowledge"?
LonesomeYogurt wrote:We are worried about present conditions....
We are? Where does the present begin and end? Isn't worry rooted in the defilement of delusion?
The so-calle "recourse to statisics" you mentioned is not my doing. I'm not "recoursing". Please tell me you at least
understand the difference between discrete statistics and inferential statistics. Have you even taken a college level satistics course?