Interesting you draw this rather long bow, without mentioning basilios constant outright ad hom, and dodging a reasonable (in light of his frequent argument re vested interests) question.Appeals to vested interests, conflicts of interests, motives etc. are all Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) fallacies.
Given that the foundation of science is based upon the concept of falsifiability it says more about the person making the types of appeals listed above than it does the person for whom these are being made about.
Did you ever consider that I am saying that both sides are guilty of it?Interesting you draw this rather long bow, without mentioning basilios constant outright ad hom, and dodging a reasonable (in light of his frequent argument re vested interests) question.
Did you ever consider that I am saying that both sides are guilty of it?
It's not a long bow at all. Vested interests are completely irrelevant. Any data produced by a vested inI terest that leads to a false conclusion, can and will be proved false.
That's how science works. It's worked like that for a very long time. With great results.
Didn't see this before. I've either not expressed myself properly or you have misread what I wrote, but I'm not at all saying falsifiability is a bad thing.You make it sound like a bad thing. it is a way from differentiating science from pseudo science.
According to Popper, Falsifiability, particularly testability, is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. Popper concluded that a hypothesis or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. Therefore, he sees Falsifiability as a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Scientific theories for Popper therefore comprised all those theories that fit the scientific status of a theory in its Falsifiability, refutability or testability.
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/phi...oncept-of-falsifiability-philosophy-essay.php
Sussed out. 9 years and 658,912 posts on the issues surrounding human caused CC and Wayne has worked out I have an interest in the outcome.
Of course I do and it’s priceless. The short story as Luutzu accurately notes are my children and grandchildren. But on reflection that is far too short. If we cook , we all cook. Us, my kids, Waynes kids Luutzu children. If we somehow address the issues we all have a better chance of surviving and thriving. So if I want to see action taken that averts this disaster it’s for everyones’ sake.
If I or my children ever want to see the Great Barrier Reef in all it’s glory there is precious little time. In fact the realist in me would say "see it before it goes". And unfortunately that is probably the case for thousands of ecosytems that are under CC threat. Of course when whole ecosytems collapse let’s not pretend humans will survive in some man made bubble. Mind you when the merde does hit the fan there will no doubt be enclaves for the superrich to survive. At least for a few years.
And through all this Wayne somehow suspects I have some driving economic interest that has driven my posts on this forum and work elsewhere. By the same token Wayne must also believe that the scientific community that has researched, modelled and examined CC and its effects are similarly economically driven – and to be dismissed in the same light.
My financial interests are meagre. On principle I won’t “disclose” them because frankly they add absolutely nothing to the discussion. In the context of CC discussion my interest is trying to leave a world in a state can support life as we know it. I can’t eat money. I can’t breathe it. The essentials that sustain life are not found on the stock exchange.
Didn't see this before. I've either not expressed myself properly or you have misread what I wrote, but I'm not at all saying falsifiability is a bad thing.
Read my follow up post to WayneL.
Ves ... Knobby... what are you guy's doing? just when this thread had reached the heights of 'show'n'tell' and we are only a step away from 'kissy kissy touchy touchy wee wee'.... you blokes bring in Popper....
Fellas; ostensibly ... 'we're talking to Queensland'... who's education system though to the 1980's is renound.... and not in a good sense.
Just wait till noco finds out Popper's christian name and draws his conclusion.
Logic and scientific method ... wouldn't that be a thing...
Happy to share my pr0n collection on the appropriate forum Grasshopper, if you'd like to start a thread on that. However as it does not play to my moderate stance on CC, it is not relevant.
I'm more likely to watch shoe making pr0n to be honest, this is me on a a two heat concave front, as a matter of disclosure.
You make it sound like a bad thing. it is a way from differentiating science from pseudo science.
According to Popper, Falsifiability, particularly testability, is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. Popper concluded that a hypothesis or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. Therefore, he sees Falsifiability as a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Scientific theories for Popper therefore comprised all those theories that fit the scientific status of a theory in its Falsifiability, refutability or testability.
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/phi...oncept-of-falsifiability-philosophy-essay.php
Professor Peter Ridd of JCU Townsville questions the the coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef......Peter Ridd, whom I have met on two occasions has studied the reef for 30 years.
http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.a...f/news-story/ef9dca8cd45394c9481253ef2ba387a4
It's obvious why.Man made Global Warming has hit Darwin.....Read the link to find out why.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/techn...s/news-story/e9f024be59a2950ee44ff00a70dd69a6
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?