[Coral-List] AGW:Walking the Walk (R.D.)
ceo at lindorm.com
Mon Nov 29 09:39:31 EST 2010
Good science cannot impose limits on what is to be considered
relevant, and what is not; nor on who is to be allowed to speak and
who is not -- only that obvious spam and posts obviously designed to
disrupt rather than contribute should be filtered out.
As regards the sarcastically described standards, a point was made,
but it is clearly just a point, as such standards are not relevant
for the argument.
Ultimately, the only thing that should determine whether to reject a
particular scientific hypothesis are relevant arguments. It is my
experience that in most debates - even among scientists - the
majority of arguments made are in fact irrelevant. For an argument to
be relevant it has to be logically true, and for it to be valid it
also has to be based on true facts. I can recommend anyone interested
in debating to study up the Wikipedia.org article on Logical Fallacy,
With that in fresh memory, read some debate (e.g. on AGW) and try to
detect the fallacies. I think you often will find that entire posts
contain nothing but fallacious statements. Unfortunately, fallacious
statements seem to be much more prevalent than relevant arguments (as
I discovered when debating with a self-declared "skeptical society"
on another matter).
On 2010-11-27, at 11:12, Steve Mussman wrote:
> Few would be willing to live up to the standards that were
> sarcastically described, but
> we can all do our part to thoughtfully take steps to try and assure
> that we are making
> things better for the generations that follow.
> After all, that is the fundamental reason for exploring this issue
> in the first place.
More information about the Coral-List