hahahahah, barth, you get so !*ANGRY*! when you're wrong!

Subject:

Comments:
: : : do you believe in anthrogenic global warming? : : Yes. It just makes sense. Why do you think it's false? Don't quote statistics at me, because different scientists on different sides of the issue tend to come up with climate statistics that support their own views, so I'm not going to accept statistics from either group. If you think it's false, tell me why you think it's improbable. : i'll post my phil of science term paper on here when i'm done with it, if you'd like. still in the formative stages. but you'll get it soon. semester is almost up. : if you're impatient, i suggest you read the study that's published at http://www.oism.org/pproject/ : over 17000 climatologists have signed the petition. a similar project is underway in australia. http://csf.colorado.edu/ecofem/oct97/0049.html : the liepzig declaration, another project undertaken by climatologists opposed to the ipcc's horrendously bad scientific practices http://www.sepp.org/leipzig.html : to see the study that just about all the climatologists on earth are screaming over, goto http://www.ipcc.ch/ : in this case, there is EVERY indication, in the scientific data, that global climate change is WELL within standard fluctuation, and that humans have next to nothing to do with it, and no reason to worry at all. in fact, carbon in the atmosphere has been shown to increase plant growth, and thus, benefit the ecosystem as a whole. : : : : or that mdma is known to be dangerous? : : Yes. Again, it just makes sense. It alters the brain quite significantly in the short term. Why WOULDN'T that have long-term effects? : well, there's absolutely no evidence to say that it does or that it doesn't. it is NOT "known to be dangerous." : : : : how careful are you about the things you accept? : : I have to understand them first, and decide that they are plausible and don't conflict with anything else I've learned about. : you should be more careful about where you get your information. bad science abounds in this modern age. : : : I'm not going to get caught up in a debate over this. I'm right, but it's a dicey issue that could take a long time to resolve with someone like you. : : Suffice it to say that Occam's "entities" are not physical entities, but parts of the explanation. The fewer parts ("entities") the explanation has, the more it satisfies Occam's razor. : bart, you talk very big, but you're an idiot. you really should read more before you start claiming to know anything about the philosophy of science. i could point you at some good books, if you're interested. : : : : that's not true. the crystalline spheres were not observed, and were not necessary. : : I shouldn't have to tell you why that's not relevant. : it is relevant, bart. they were not necessary entities. and, occam's "entities" refer to both "theoretical" (ie, words in the explaiantion) AND real entities that are proposed. : : : But the issue is over. All this is a debate over what Occam's razor is, and I'm not going to have that debate. : you're right. because to have that debate would be to admit that you were mistaken, that i am more informed than you are, and that is something which it seems you are incapable of doing. : : isaac

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: