SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Fluffeh writes:
"For a few years the National Research Council, National Science Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have been working to put together a set of standards for teaching science in public education schools. So far, nine states and the District of Columbia have adopted the standards. Wyoming doesn't appear to have issues with evolution. Instead, climate science appears to be the problem. That's not because any of the legislators have actually studied the science involved and found it lacking. The issue appears to be solely with the implications of the science.
State Representative Matt Teeters had this to say '[The standards] handle global warming as settled science. There's all kind of social implications involved in that that I don't think would be good for Wyoming.' Specifically, Teeters seems to think that having citizens of the state accept climate science would 'wreck Wyoming's economy,' which relies heavily on fossil fuel production."
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17 2014, @04:26AM
When I was a undergrad, I tool a course in reasoning which taught basic logical falacies.
The statement "Climate science is settled science" is a combination of two of those falacies:
1) Argumentum ad populum
2) Argumentum ab auctoritate
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17 2014, @04:43AM
When the only people opposing it anymore are Faux News and other assorted right
wing lunatics I think its fairly safe to say its "settled".
(Score: 0, Troll) by Yog-Yogguth on Monday March 17 2014, @08:21AM
"Nice" ad hominem and association fallacy there, that AC got four for the price of two.
Could those who think they're successfully arguing in favor of anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC) at least please increase their level from "A Guide to 101 Fallacies" up and through the level of gaining an understanding of falsifiability [wikipedia.org] as an important part of the scientific methodology and possibly reach a point where anything they say has a change of becoming mildly interesting?
Am I patronizing? You bet your ass I am, and the "believers" deserve it until they can do the above. Any secondary grade pupil should be failed for the nonsense they espouse and which has been repeated ad nauseam (another fallacy) throughout all of society. The onus is on them; they're the ones who have made extraordinary claims for at least twenty years running and with only failed computer models to back it up.
When people can come up with better stuff as easily as this [coyoteblog.com] the "IPCC acolytes" really ought to die of shame (Gore first please).
Or maybe it just isn't about science after all? Maybe it's all about perception of assumed benefits from rallying around the AGCC banner? Well, if it isn't about the science how would they ever justify that they think they know? At that point they've passed dogmatic religion and gone straight for "benevolent" fascism with themselves (of course) at the helm.
<End Of Rant>
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by lubricus on Monday March 17 2014, @08:24AM
Sure, in as much as "_____________ is settled science" is.
... sorry about the typos
(Score: 1) by DeathMonkey on Monday March 17 2014, @05:36PM
Fallacy: (2) Argumentum ab auctoritate (Argument from Authority)
Only if you don't know what an Argument from Authority fallacy actually is. Hint, if the person who supports your argument is an actual authority on the subject then it isn't a fallacy to reference that support.
(Score: 1) by HiThere on Monday March 17 2014, @06:58PM
The problem here is that you are thinking that a popular presentation is an example of formal reasoning, when it's actually rhetoric.
I agree that your arguments are valid criticisms of it as a logical proof. There are others, e.g. the basis of the reasoning is not explicitly listed. This is a much more basic criticism of it as a statement of formal logic. But nobody is foolish enough to expect that all the supporting lemmas (experimental evidence) would be listed. So to criticize it as formal logic is incorrect.
This isn't even a scientific paper. There aren't citations from the sources that are depended on.
This is rhetoric. It is intended to convince people who aren't willing to actually look at the evidence. If you do it becomes clear that "settled science" is a vast overstatement, but that certain portions of it are relatively settled, while other portions are doubtful. What degree of sea rise can we expect from a 2 C raise in temperature? Not settled. Some raise? Settled. Etc.
P.S.: You do not appear to be willing to check and understand the existing evidence, so I suspect that you will need to settle for rhetoric rather than for science, much less logic. (Science is much less certain than logic, as any scientist should admit. Science depends on not only logic, but on selection of evidence AND the interpretation of that evidence. OTOH, you can't use only logic to design a steam engine. You depend not only on Science, but also on Engineering, which is even less certain, having many procedures that are based purely on "best practice", but with no theoretical backing, merely "what has worked before".)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.