Originally posted by King Kandy
No, I respectfully decline to be part of your hallucinations about what I said. Read my post again, and it should be clear to anyone who has passed first grade that I said that:THAT IT IS GRAVITY THAT PULLS US TO THE GROUND is the theory. That is what this post says. Stop trying to force your misreadings upon others.
Oh, hi, KK. How are you today?
About the climate change....
Originally posted by inimalist
well, considering truth is relative, I would disagree with you. Something being a valid scientific theory certainly makes it more "true" than that which is not, in almost all cases.
Why would you disagree with me when I was extending to King Kandy's post?
And, everytihng is relative.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Hey, i'm not the one who tried to demean global warming by saying it was a "theory, not a fact". In science there is no fact.
I didn't demean global warming. And, in science, there are facts. I don't care for these lame "deep philosophical" word semantic games being attempted. That's so stupid, like doodoo butter.
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, there are no facts. If something is a fact, that means it can never be refuted and thus is not falsifiable. That makes it a dogma. The possibility of something being proved wrong must always be left open.
So how does that change anything I sad?
Edit - Just re-read what you posted. You pretty much agreed with what I said.
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, there are no facts. If something is a fact, that means it can never be refuted and thus is not falsifiable. That makes it a dogma. The possibility of something being proved wrong must always be left open.
I don't know it still seems like there could be facts we just can't know, so we treat them as refutable, even though they are possibly fact. Might also not be the case though.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why would you disagree with me when I was extending to King Kandy's post?
because I agree with his point but not yours. Something being a "theory" in science does not make it less true, but in fact does make it more true than things which aren't scientific theories.
In respect to the topic at hand, the general acceptance of man's role in global warming is a scientific theory with strong bodies of evidence and little apparent contradiction, and is holds a strong consensus among relevant academics.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And, everytihng is relative.
fair enough, that was sort of my point, relatively speaking, something being a scientific theory makes it more true.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And, in science, there are facts. I don't care for these lame "deep philosophical" word semantic games being attempted. That's so stupid, like doodoo butter.
while you might not care for them, what you deem "word semantic games" and "doodoo butter" are actually the foundations of proper scientific rigour and methods.
you were the one who brought up the "just a theory" argument. I can't believe you would, as you should know how meaningless the phrase is. You can't make statements about philosophy of science and then back out of the discussion because it is stupid
In respect to the topic at hand, the general acceptance of man's role in global warming is a scientific theory with strong bodies of evidence and little apparent contradiction, and is holds a strong consensus among relevant academics.
That's not 100% accurate. I don't think anyone will doubt man's role in global warming but it's the quantification of that role that the problem lies.
I don't think it's helped matters that the IPCC keep making complete balls ups of their reports.
1st the Himalyan glacier report that was based on an article in a climbing magazine and an undergraduate's university paper.
Now there's the issue with the rainforest report in which they used an unreferenced WWF article as the basis for the report.
It makes the IPCC seem like a bunch idiots just blindly googling things and then making reports on what nonsense they find.
I wouldn't be surprised if they write a report based on this video.
Originally posted by inimalist
because I agree with his point but not yours.
Despite the fact that my point is exactly the same as his? That's odd.
He said, "50% of poop is brown." I said, "50% of poop is not brown."
Same exact point, just worded differently.
Originally posted by inimalist
Something being a "theory" in science does not make it less true, but in fact does make it more true than things which aren't scientific theories.
And, on the same exact token, something being a theory in science doesn't make it any more true than it already was. It is a theory, hopefully, with supporting evidence. It is not a scientific law, it is not a fact. It is a theory. Supporting facts are certainly helpful, but lets not put the cart before the horse. A stronger, more credible theory could come along that is supported, even better, by facts. This is the bane of theory. This is all very much a word semantics argument. I don't like it. The reason: we can argue about it forever and still not get anywhere.
Originally posted by inimalist
In respect to the topic at hand, the general acceptance of man's role in global warming is a scientific theory with strong bodies of evidence and little apparent contradiction, and is holds a strong consensus among relevant academics.
That's worded a tad biasedly, don't you think? Why wouldn't you say:
Anthropogenic global warming theory has a large body of empirical support and credible scientific community support. The opponents and critics also contain valid empiricisms and scientific supporters, but not to the extent as the proponents. Each "side", however, has lots of hot air (lulz, pun), lies, and overly zealous morons with the anthropogenic side wining in a numbers contest (simply due to the much large support for it).
Me, personally, I fall closer towards the anthropenic side, but closer towards the center. I think there's major idiots on both sides and it can be a large waste of time.
Originally posted by inimalist
while you might not care for them, what you deem "word semantic games" and "doodoo butter" are actually the foundations of proper scientific rigour and methods.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves and apply a meaning to my words that were never there.
Originally posted by inimalist
you were the one who brought up the "just a theory" argument. I can't believe you would, as you should know how meaningless the phrase is. You can't make statements about philosophy of science and then back out of the discussion because it is stupid
If that's how you view my opinion, than you didn't quite understand it the first time around.
1. I was being facetious.
2. I was passively aggressively making fun of the libtard sentiment that i was observing.
3. Some people seem to think that just that side is the end all be all of the argument/debate and that's simply not the case. Theories are still just theories. Some theories have much more support than others but, let's be honest, there's two types of theories that are being discussed here: theories and solid theories.
Made man global warming is NOT a solid theory. It's can be a strong theory, in some aspects, and very weak in others.
Damnit. You bastard. You've got me arguing the word semantics of it, just like I did NOT want to. 😆
Originally posted by jaden101
I don't think anyone will doubt man's role in global warming but it's the quantification of that role that the problem lies.
Bingo.
Edit - Just watched that youtube vid. Holy shit, that b**** is annoying. We need a code 187 at her residence, stat.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And, on the same exact token, something being a theory in science doesn't make it any more true than it already was. It is a theory, hopefully, with supporting evidence. It is not a scientific law, it is not a fact. It is a theory. Supporting facts are certainly helpful, but lets not put the cart before the horse. A stronger, more credible theory could come along that is supported, even better, by facts. This is the bane of theory. This is all very much a word semantics argument. I don't like it. The reason: we can argue about it forever and still not get anywhere.
Originally posted by King Kandy
It being a theory makes it as valid as anything else in science including laws. In fact as a theory encompasses a large variety of evidence, it is actually much more difficult to refute, since a law is merely a mathematical relationship that could be shown not to be true. Laymen have the idea that law>theory because they have the "theory=guess" definition stuck in their mind, but it is not so in any way.
No, you're right.
I'll continue to incorrectly believe that not all theories were created equal and that some people give to much credence to theories that shouldn't be given. If I'm wrong, I'll learn eventually.
Peace, bro.