Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9028 total)
42 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 41 visitors)
Newest Member: Michael MD
Post Volume: Total: 884,212 Year: 1,858/14,102 Month: 226/624 Week: 110/95 Day: 1/38 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What are acceptable sources of "scientific knowledge"?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 38 (724909)
04-22-2014 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ben!
04-21-2014 12:11 PM


When we request each other to provide evidence in an argument, should we be referring to source papers that contain original data, or is referring to authorities good enough?

If it's good enough, when and why is that the case?

No reference is so good as to be unquestionable. In fact citing references is only the start of a discussion. There is also verifying that a proponent is correct about the reference, verifying that the reference is relevant, and then verifying that the reference is correct.

Papers with data, at least to the point that we understand the data, are more easy to verify, but it is equally important that the reasoning and implications based on the data are correct.

As to your last question, I don't think limiting the conclusions to what is generally agreed on is a useful technique for a debate site. What is wanted is a chain of fact and assertion that is logically rigorous and based on the truth and the strength of that chain is what we want to discuss here.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ben!, posted 04-21-2014 12:11 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Ben!, posted 04-23-2014 9:42 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 38 (725284)
04-25-2014 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Ben!
04-25-2014 10:10 AM


Re: Illogical use of logic?
In my example, advertising would be backed by the science of global warming. The logic is the same as the current approach; it's the approach in convincing others that's different.

I'm pretty skeptical about this approach. Advertising can be applied regardless of the truth, and the deeper pockets are against the science. With all of the publicity so far, people still cannot tell the difference between climate and weather.

I believe that the Supreme Court is about to confirm that propagating absolute, bald faced, vicious lies using grotesquely huge amounts of money is absolutely cool during a political campaign, and few things are more politically involved than global warming.

Yes, something like this might work for preventing forest fires. I'd get a big old bear to deliver the message. But Smokey would not have to fight the Koch brothers and 60 Plus.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Ben!, posted 04-25-2014 10:10 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Ben!, posted 04-25-2014 4:11 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021