Search results

:blob_cookie:

In fact, this is a wonderful example of human perception. We have the same data, and yet we come to different conclusions of what we say to each other.

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.

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.

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...

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...

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...

:blob_neutral: Your sophism is quite annoying. If consensus is not science, what is then? Maybe I should give you a copy of Popper and Kant.

:blob_neutral:

:blob_neutral: We are gatherers and hunters.

"I use fancy tags!" he exclaimed. "I use normal tags," she said.

Use none. They are overrated. Action tags are more useful. If you use dialogue tags, then to emphasise, and if you emphasise, then don't use "say", "ask", etc.

These statements are correct only with a certain premise. Granted, you have the one in question.

Anthropogenic is just the scientific term for man made. And, yes, you claimed so. You said, "Because it’s happening regardless of our own emissions." That means that we are not the crucial factor. If something happens regardless of our activity, then it is not man made. We merely accelerate...

:blob_nom: Then say it openly. Say that an anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist. Say that the current events are a "natural" progression of climate. Do you agree with these statements?

:blob_nom: Then why did you say, " 1. I don’t deny our part in it." If you are saying, it is happening regardless, then you are denying our part in. You say that we are not the crucial factor. So you are arguing against anthropogenic climate change, after all.

Then why do you say stuff like, "Climate change is constantly occurring, but whether it’s linked to man-made co2 emissions is not proven."# :blob_cookie: If you didn't, I wouldn't be here arguing with you.

:blob_nom: This is why I am asking for your feedback. I try to define your position, so I must necessarily ask all possibilities. 1. So you acknowledge our part in it. 2. You have doubts about both the degree of heating and CO2 levels. So all in all, you admit that there is an...

So, if I understand correctly, you don't deny climate change itself, but rather our part in it, correct? So, you acknowledge that a global heating is going on and that is also caused by rising CO2 levels, but you say that it is not us causing it?