You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Do you truly understand science? Okay, do you understand an appeal to authority falacy?

in #science7 years ago (edited)

I never had a problem believing climate change was real, until all these celebrities started talking about it. What I sense is there is interest in us believing we are to blame, but the disinformation media and govs never had an interest in us taking responsibility for ourselves so I find that Fishy.

Even the pope has started talking about it, he tells us to trust scientists about climate change. Couldn't he had said god gave him a vision and instructed him to tell us we should change our ways to take care of nature? Nahhh, he wants us to believe in scientists... If that doesn't set every alarm off I don't know what will.

Sort:  

I'm a good Catholic boy... I initially liked the pope a lot... Until he started entering conversations that supported popularism. Since when does religion and/or God support popularism? God is absolute... I lost most of my respect for him and his love of rubbing elbows with celebrities, etc.

The Christian god is an absolutist ideology and an appeal to authority. I am not surprised the pope is asking people to trust, I am surprised he is asking people to trust scientists instead of telling us to trust him and his church and their interpretation of the bible.

He could had told us to trust science but that's not what he said, he said to listen to scientists because they are precise. He could have told us god told him scientists who claim we are to blame are right about this one, instead he is giving these people authority and calling mankind stupid while making gestures hitting his own head on camera.

It has nothing to do with populism, which is supposed to be democracy, which is still faulty. This is about the reason why someone who is supposed to be the representation of an all-knowing creature would prefer to give command to others who may not even share the faith. It's unheard of, goes against all history and logic given that he could have just offered any solutions scientists are offering and say god gave him the answers.

Well the fact of the matter is that the climate has always been changing. The question is how much are we impacting it? Are we impacting it the way they say? If so, so what? What are the implications?

If it is a problem then we look for solutions.

The big problem is the carbon tax is no kind of solution. It is a farce. That is clearly power and politically motivated as it solves nothing and actually gives licenses to the largest offenders to keep on keepin' on. It essentially taxes everyone for breathing, and thus living.

There are a lot of alternative approaches. Like maybe stop deforestation. Plant more types of plants known to process carbon and release oxygen faster.

Yet what they are not telling you is that having too little carbon can lead to issues too.

One thing is certain. The climate will change. (I didn't state in what way, as I don't know)

How much of it is our fault or even under our control is another matter all together.

You did hit it. The term science has actually been hijacked. Some aspects of it are essentially now a religion and have very little to do with actual science. Yet if people don't know the difference then they won't be able to tell when they are dealing with science and when they are dealing with the religion of science. The two things are in opposition and do not peaceful coexist. For dogma and blind faith and belief have no place in the scientific method.

Any terms that can inspire people to act will be hijacked unfortunately. We are in the Re-branding Era

We are in the Re-branding Era

U are sooo right with this.

It is so easy to go from man is polluting the earth, to man is responsible for "climate change".
And that is what I see mostly. A group of wanna-be-green freaks that don't want to do anything themselves, but want to lobby govern-cement to fix it. To bad for them, they are asking the wolf, to talk to the fox about guarding the hen house.

If we were a scientific community, when Al Gore said, "Don't they look like the go together?" Everyone in the audience should have shouted, in unison, "Lets put them together and find out." But no, everyone believe Al Gore proved that CO2 causes global warming. When logically, by not doing so, he proved the opposite. (If they showed what he was saying when put together, he would have showed that. Since he didn't show it, they must prove the opposite; which they do.)

And then there is so much happening in the woo-woo community, but that's not scientific. Doesn't matter that many people are getting the same results, it flies in the face of "science" and thus must be wrong. Like consciousness effecting matter; Ice crystal formations altered by the emotions of words.