|
|
|
|
|
by aww_dang
1518 days ago
|
|
There is also "political science" and "social science". There are also those who advance the premise that mathematics is empirical, but for the context of the discussion I'm not sure that either is relevant. Mathematical "testing" can be described as deduction. We can present math axioms, but can we present scientific axioms? Science as a religion or science as an all encompassing worldview is unscientific. This is better described as scientism. If you examine the premises of climate doom, you'll find unscientific presuppositions. There are also necessarily moral implications to the goals of regulating consumption and population size. It becomes even less scientific for cynics who question if the climate scientist's "experiments" and models are incentivized to necessitate certain conclusions. These are items which are best disputed in their respective arenas. "Believe the science" doesn't tell us anything about morality or the ideological progenitors of the climate movement. It narrows the issue while mischaracterizing science as a system of belief which can inform us on moral matters or the historical record of climate doom ideologues. |
|
Or do you disagree that the level of the sea is rising as frozen water at the poles is putting more water into the sea? These are things that are reality. It doesn't matter if you think I have impure motives about something, am I stating things that are reality? You have prevented no information that these things are not reality, you are just arguing about mysterious dark motivations of people who are pointing out things that are really happening.