Paths To Knowledge (dot Science)

What is actually real in Objective Reality? How do you know? Now, prove it's real!

While we debate whether or not humans are the cause of Global Warming we are at the same time running the experiment. We are in the test tube.

Posted by pwl on March 14, 2009

“Science is never finished. Science is never certain. Every scientific statement carries with it a level of certainty.” – Greg

“How do you know which side to believe?” – Greg

Let’s check to see if Greg’s logic is delusional! Hey, he asks us to do so! So let’s do that…

His logic is too binary, too simplistic. His argument depends upon the argument being framed in simplistic terms. When reality is brought into the picture the argument falls apart. The world is much more fuzzy than presented in the video. Also, each solution has other reasons than AWG to do it thus the logic is totally faulty. Too many false choices presented in this video. Yes, his world is a world straight out of science fiction. Utter nonsense. Our future is not rows and columns, it’s much more complex thus it requires a much richer and more subtle representation system than four possible boxes. Thus “the only choice is [NOT] column A”!

The problem is that your way of representing the issues, problems, solutions, possibilities and realities is too limited leading to false conclusions that are needless.

Yes, you are wrong Greg due to simplistic logic disconnected from objective reality. Just like those with invisible friends.

What I like about his presentation is that at least he is willing to discuss the issues even if his methods are too simplistic.

My thoughts are that his arguments are too simplistic and thus don’t reflect reality however that’s how most people want their “political” choices presented to them: A, B, C, or D. Pro/Con. True/False. Row/Column. No deep thoughts. The problem is that over the long term this might not be a viable way of thinking and choosing or making political decisions since it too easily diverges from objective reality too far.

A deeper level of scientific argument with a richer representation and decision making methodology is required for the presentation of political choices that need to be rooted in hard science that reflects the actual objective reality.

What do you think about the logic presented in this video?

Another version, slightly different, of the same argument.

2 Responses to “While we debate whether or not humans are the cause of Global Warming we are at the same time running the experiment. We are in the test tube.”

  1. […] While we debate whether or not humans are the cause of Global Warming we are at the same time runnin… […]

  2. pwl said

    Mysterious commenter, please don’t leave the article title as your name in the future. Use a name please.

    Mysterious commenter, you obviously didn’t read the comments that I wrote indicating that Greg’s logic is too simplistic to accurately and properly represent the objective reality of climate science. His logic is an excellent presentation of the logic used to convince people to act politically by the use of a simplistic and false 2×2 grid model. It’s a pathetic and intellectually dishonest method yet effective on the masses. Unfortunately the AWG folks have cried “wolf” far too much and it’s waring thin especially considering the lack of hard evidence in the soft science of climate science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: