Climate change and overpopulation

[Assurbanipal_II]

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Why isn't @justabot locking the thread anyway?

to punish you.

Consensus is not science.

Ah, ti's the plane and tower thing,
Carry on, ignore me message,

No ignoring here. Until this thread is locked, I want to have my fun.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

to punish you.

Consensus is not science.





No ignoring here. Until this thread is locked, I want to have my fun.

Your sophism is quite annoying.

If consensus is not science, what is then? Maybe I should give you a copy of Popper and Kant.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Your sophism is quite annoying.

If consensus is not science, what is then? Maybe I should give you a copy of Popper and Kant.

Science is truth. The desire for actual truth. Consensus is just majority belief. Hence, scientific consensus is an oxymoron when used in scientific discussion.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

If consensus is not science, what is then?

Are you being serious?

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Science is truth. The desire for actual truth. Consensus is just majority belief. Hence, scientific consensus is an oxymoron when used in scientific discussion.

All perception is by nature subjective. The fact that you use the word "truth" already indicates such. Truth is a judgment. Truth is an interpretation.

Truth is something for religions, but not for science. Because science is fact. Science is what is. Science is empirical and not a metaphysical "truth".

To arrive at facts, consensus is a more than valid way. After all, you must establish and forming them from a variety of, often diverging opinions, is a reasonable method. Otherwise, there would be no conclusions at all.

 

[Midnight-Phantom]

Did you find everything you need for your paper? and will all of this fit into a single one?

I hope you're not using physical paper, those things are a pain in the environment. They take water and energy to make, and they can harm trees. There are eco-friendly paper products out there, but they can be pricey.

I wonder why so many things require dead plants, even living a good life requires too much money. Even education !! (smelling global conspiracy)

All perception is by nature subjective. The fact that you use the word "truth" already indicates such. Truth is a judgment. Truth is an interpretation.

Truth is something for religions, but not for science. Because science is fact. Science is what is. Science is empirical and not a metaphysical "truth".

To arrive at facts, consensus is a more than valid way. After all, you must establish and forming them from a variety of, often diverging opinions, is a reasonable method. Otherwise, there would be no conclusions at all.

now si-fi philosophy too ..

 

[AnonUnlimited]

All perception is by nature subjective. The fact that you use the word "truth" already indicates such. Truth is a judgment. Truth is an interpretation.

Truth is something for religions, but not for science. Because science is fact. Science is what is. Science is empirical and not a metaphysical "truth".

To arrive at facts, consensus is a more than valid way. After all, you must establish and forming them from a variety of, often diverging opinions, is a reasonable method. Otherwise, there would be no conclusions at all.

That’s semantics. Facts and truth to me are the exact same thing.

I disagree.

Science is objective, regardless of subjective consensus. Since we have that fundamental disagreement on the importance of objectivism, there really is no point in discussing further.

If science is subjective, then it’s a religion that interprets and controls information to manufacture facts to suit their own narrative. Similar to how the Catholic Church didn’t allow the common person to read the Bible.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

That’s semantics. Facts and truth to me are the exact same thing.

I disagree.

Science is objective, regardless of subjective consensus. Since we have that fundamental disagreement on the importance of objectivism, there really is no point in discussing further.

If science is subjective, then it’s a religion that interprets and controls information to manufacture facts to suit their own narrative. Similar to how the Catholic Church didn’t allow the common person to read the Bible.

Facts are objective. Conclusions are not. I won't go into this old Kantian discussion about perception and reason. Science wants to be objective, but it will never be entirely.

The fact alone that we have such diverging opinions and both claim to stand on the side of "science" should be a strong indicator. If science was truly objective, there would be no disagreement, no arguments in the scientific community. There would be always one solution. But there isn't. Science in its application has a strong subjective element.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Facts are objective. Conclusions are not. I won't go into this old Kantian discussion about perception and reason. Science wants to be objective, but it will never be entirely.

The fact alone that we have such diverging opinions and both claim to stand on the side of "science" should be a strong indicator. If science was truly objective, there would be no disagreement, no arguments in the scientific community. There would be always one solution. But there isn't. Science in its application has a strong subjective element.

I agree.
Why didn’t you just say this from the beginning instead of personally assigning assumptions to what I meant?

 

[Midnight-Phantom]

Rationizeing some things are truly hard, people's perception is dependent on a lot of things, and you can't force upon them your point of view, facts and truth are for me like this

fact: I am discussing this thread cuz I'm bored / cuz I like the topic / sometimes you guys are going fiery and a light-hearted comment can chill out your brain a little / It's cool to find a lot of different perspectives on the same matter and that helps me a lot on how I watch the world as a whole.

truth: I'm using the platform provided by Scribble Hub to watch, read, comment, and socialize with some people which I kinda like to talk to. And currently, the action is happening on this particular thread.

 

[greyblob]

Facts are objective. Conclusions are not. I won't go into this old Kantian discussion about perception and reason. Science wants to be objective, but it will never be entirely.

The fact alone that we have such diverging opinions and both claim to stand on the side of "science" should be a strong indicator. If science was truly objective, there would be no disagreement, no arguments in the scientific community. There would be always one solution. But there isn't. Science in its application has a strong subjective element.

isnt that the definition of a theory? there are scientific theories and scientific facts. earth revolving around the sun. earth revolving around itself. these are facts no?

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

I agree.
Why didn’t you just say this from the beginning instead of personally assigning assumptions to what I meant?

You made the claim that science is truth. From my perspective, you are the one who is backpedalling here.

I stated that science is fact. That truth carries a strong subjective connotation and should be therefore avoided. The truth of today might be the wrong of tomorrow. Because truth is absolute and eternal! If you even have the smallest doubt, then it is certainty and not truth.

And I also stated that consensus is a useful way to arrive at conclusions. Because face it, a science without conclusions is utterly useless. The imperative of science is to produce results.

If we can't agree on anything, then we have nothing. That is why consensus is a valid method. Because if we go down your path, then we come to nothing. Just saying something is not proven doesn't help anyone. What would help is if something is proven to be wrong!

 

[melchi]

1958 is when they first started formally logging CO2 at a single weather station.

The gas monitors I've worked with use chemicals treated rolls of tape that change color when the target gas is flowed through them. Optics measure the color change of the tape and calculate the density of the gas from this.

So my question would be how can this measurement be messed up? There are several parts that have to be working properly to get accurate data.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

All perception is by nature subjective. The fact that you use the word "truth" already indicates such. Truth is a judgment. Truth is an interpretation.

Truth is something for religions, but not for science. Because science is fact. Science is what is. Science is empirical and not a metaphysical "truth".

To arrive at facts, consensus is a more than valid way. After all, you must establish and forming them from a variety of, often diverging opinions, is a reasonable method. Otherwise, there would be no conclusions at all.

Facts are objective. Conclusions are not. I won't go into this old Kantian discussion about perception and reason. Science wants to be objective, but it will never be entirely.

The fact alone that we have such diverging opinions and both claim to stand on the side of "science" should be a strong indicator. If science was truly objective, there would be no disagreement, no arguments in the scientific community. There would be always one solution. But there isn't. Science in its application has a strong subjective element.

Your statements are contradictory. You claim truth and fact are different, then in application they are the same.

Science is fact, yet fact can come from consensus of truths.

It doesn't make sense logically.

Evidence is fact.
Interpretation is not truth, it is belief.

 

[Daitengu]

The problem is how did we even measure the CO2 increase during the Industrial Revolution?
the first measurement device for atmospheric gases was 1934, way after the Revolution which started in the 1800s

Then, how did we know what volcanic activity is taking place during that time? Underwater volcanos, over 20,000 of them. Do we know exactly when they were active? I’m just questioning why we can be so sure of something when there isn’t actual proof but “suggestive evidence” that isn’t backed by much but conjecture.

EDIT: It was actually only in 1958 that they could do measurements of atmospheric CO2, before then the analytics and sensors could only measure through a container with known volume.

Hence I find your statement about the Industrial Revolution correlation dismissing away a volcanic theory to be unfounded.

This doesn’t mean you have to accept volcanic theory, it just means it’s on the same level as manmade emissions for now.

Ah yes, ignore things like ice core samples, rock samples, and tree ring samples.

I mean why else would I know the CO2 ppm during the dinosaur eras ranged from 1000 to 3000.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Rationizeing some things are truly hard, people's perception is dependent on a lot of things, and you can't force upon them your point of view, facts and truth are for me like this

fact: I am discussing this thread cuz I'm bored / cuz I like the topic / sometimes you guys are going fiery and a light-hearted comment can chill out your brain a little / It's cool to find a lot of different perspectives on the same matter and that helps me a lot on how I watch the world as a whole.

truth: I'm using the platform provided by Scribble Hub to watch, read, comment, and socialize with some people which I kinda like to talk to. And currently, the action is happening on this particular thread.

No issue with that. Generally discussions like these are not allowed because they’re too emotionally charged and often lead to personal attacks as you have probably already seen.

I personally love discussions like these, because there is always maybe something new to learn.

You made the claim that science is truth. From my perspective, you are the one who is backpedalling here..

I want to focus on this.
why the hell are you trying so desperately to make a statement about me backpedaling?

If I backpedal then isn’t it a good thing I learned something?

Second, I already clarified what I meant, yet you’re still trying to somehow say that I’m wrong.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Your statements are contradictory. You claim truth and fact are different, then in application they are the same.

Science is fact, yet fact can come from consensus of truths.

It doesn't make sense logically.

Evidence is fact.
Interpretation is not truth, it is belief.

Because there are two truths, the idealistic, absolute concept of "truth".

And the practical, empirical concept of "truth".

Ask an empiricist and a rationalist, and you will get two very different answers of what truth is.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Ah yes, ignore things like ice core samples, rock samples, and tree ring samples.

I mean why else would I know the CO2 ppm during the dinosaur eras ranged from 1000 to 3000.

I don’t put stock in conclusions on things we can’t measure currently, since that requires interpretation of data to reach a conclusion.

I could take all the data and come up with some other untestable conclusion.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

No issue with that. Generally discussions like these are not allowed because they’re too emotionally charged and often lead to personal attacks as you have probably already seen.

I personally love discussions like these, because there is always maybe something new to learn.

I want to focus on this.
why the hell are you trying so desperately to make a statement about me backpedaling?

If I backpedal then isn’t it a good thing I learned something?

Second, I already clarified what I meant, yet you’re still trying to somehow say that I’m wrong.

You asked me, "I agree.
Why didn’t you just say this from the beginning instead of personally assigning assumptions to what I meant?"

I gave you the answer. If you don't like it, that is not my problem.