Write your comment in the form below. Be sure to 'Preview' your comment to make sure that it will appear as you want it to.
You Are Replying To This Comment:
why you sound like you're full of shit
By jr
Mar 29th 2007
at 3:24 am EDT
(Updated
Mar 29th 2007 at 3:33 am EDT)
I decided that you might not understand why what you just did is unacceptable practice in debate, as well as why you're full of shit. So, I thought I'd help you out by explaining this in small words.
Basically, you made an unsubstantiated assertion, then when you were challenged to offer any evidence to back up your assertion, you instead demanded that first someone offer proof that your assertion might be wrong. So, for example, if I said "you like to sit on your thumb and sing Mr Big songs off-key," and you said "no I don't, and it's irresponsible for you to make that claim without any evidence," and then I said, "oh, yeah? prove that you don't sit on your thumb and sing Mr Big songs off-key," that'd be about what you just did.
Further, theories are never "proved." The process involved in researching a theory's validity (commonly referred to as "scientific method"--I suggest going back to whatever high school science teacher you had and insisting that you be allowed to learn this stuff properly) is to simply test and retest a hypothesis and see if it is disproved by experimentation or observation. All you can know about a theory is whether or not someone has shown it to be false. Nobody has ever "proved" the theory of gravity, or the first law of thermodynamics, or anything you probably think of as "scientific law"--all we can say for sure is that those particular theories have held up amazingly well over the years, and that they are accordingly reasonable assumptions, based on the evidence we now have. CO2-caused global climate change is the theory that best fits with the available climate science, so any responsible scientist would have to start by assuming that theory is correct, THEN test that theory against the evidence to determine if it is flawed. That's the way science is done, and it works pretty well. But if you're too great to have to deal with little things like the scientific method or falsification, then we understand.
My advice: pull your thumb out of your ass, stop singing "The One Who Wants to Be with You," and learn how to proffer an opinion without making yourself look like you're abjectly full-of-shit.
You Are Commenting On This Post:
New "Expert" Testimony on Climate Change for Conservatives
While those of us in the progressive and fact-based community lament press coverage of global warming, conservatives (woeful cries of victimhood notwithstanding) seem to make out pretty well. Despite that well known study showing virtually zero significant dissent among actual scientific experts on the existence of human-induced climate change, every mainstream media outlet (confusing objectivity with equal time) always describes climate change as a contentious theory.
The Drudge Report has found new expert testimony to corroborate conservative denials, though. On his popular website (a link aggregator that appeals to conservatives by sticking Anna-Nicole updates next to calls for immigrant-hunts), Drudge posted this: 6th Graders Vote that Global Warming is not caused by humans...
Yes, those arbiters of wisdom and gods among men in the scientific community otherwise known as pre-teens have weighed in. Score one for Inhofe and Exxon.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
!
Basically, you made an unsubstantiated assertion, then when you were challenged to offer any evidence to back up your assertion, you instead demanded that first someone offer proof that your assertion might be wrong. So, for example, if I said "you like to sit on your thumb and sing Mr Big songs off-key," and you said "no I don't, and it's irresponsible for you to make that claim without any evidence," and then I said, "oh, yeah? prove that you don't sit on your thumb and sing Mr Big songs off-key," that'd be about what you just did.
Further, theories are never "proved." The process involved in researching a theory's validity (commonly referred to as "scientific method"--I suggest going back to whatever high school science teacher you had and insisting that you be allowed to learn this stuff properly) is to simply test and retest a hypothesis and see if it is disproved by experimentation or observation. All you can know about a theory is whether or not someone has shown it to be false. Nobody has ever "proved" the theory of gravity, or the first law of thermodynamics, or anything you probably think of as "scientific law"--all we can say for sure is that those particular theories have held up amazingly well over the years, and that they are accordingly reasonable assumptions, based on the evidence we now have. CO2-caused global climate change is the theory that best fits with the available climate science, so any responsible scientist would have to start by assuming that theory is correct, THEN test that theory against the evidence to determine if it is flawed. That's the way science is done, and it works pretty well. But if you're too great to have to deal with little things like the scientific method or falsification, then we understand.
My advice: pull your thumb out of your ass, stop singing "The One Who Wants to Be with You," and learn how to proffer an opinion without making yourself look like you're abjectly full-of-shit.