General > General Technical Chat
heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
<< < (61/67) > >>
EEVblog:

--- Quote from: beanflying on August 12, 2023, 08:44:26 am ---What part of this is so difficult? Science has NOTHING to do with skepticism!

--- End quote ---

Then in the very next sentence:

--- Quote ---If you disagree with another's data, evidence or hypothesis then you put up your own and the competition of that circle is generally to be published and peer reviewed.

--- End quote ---

That's called being skeptical of their results  :palm:
It's a natural part of the process. You may not call it skepticism, but that's basically what it is. It may be because you happen to already have data that proves otherwise, but (most?) often it's you thinking "Hmm, this doesn't sound right...", a gut feeling, a hunch, hairs on the back your neck, you smell something fishy etc etc. So your inherent questioning/skepticism of those result leads you to do your own further research.
beanflying:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on August 12, 2023, 11:36:52 am ---
--- Quote from: beanflying on August 12, 2023, 08:44:26 am ---What part of this is so difficult? Science has NOTHING to do with skepticism!

--- End quote ---

Then in the very next sentence:

--- Quote ---If you disagree with another's data, evidence or hypothesis then you put up your own and the competition of that circle is generally to be published and peer reviewed.

--- End quote ---

That's called being skeptical of their results  :palm:
It's a natural part of the process. You may not call it skepticism, but that's basically what it is. It may be because you happen to already have data that proves otherwise, but (most?) often it's you thinking "Hmm, this doesn't sound right...", a gut feeling, a hunch, hairs on the back your neck, you smell something fishy etc etc. So your inherent questioning/skepticism of those result leads you to do your own further research.

--- End quote ---

How about YOU go look at a definition of the word! It broadly means to 'doubt the 'truth'. It is one step up from some conspiracy nutter with no qualifications in a field making an ambit claim. All to often a negative conclusion is offered up and then someone will try and fake or massage the results to make that conclusion their truth. Again NOT SCIENCE.

Questioning the truth as I stated several posts back is fine and I have zero issues with that but you sure as hell need to be able to back it up with hard fact and evidence and this is in this case Science.

This is where this debate and other like it goes off the rails because of demands that 'my truth' is more powerful than actual Science which remains  :bullshit:

coppice:

--- Quote from: beanflying on August 12, 2023, 11:49:57 am ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on August 12, 2023, 11:36:52 am ---
--- Quote from: beanflying on August 12, 2023, 08:44:26 am ---What part of this is so difficult? Science has NOTHING to do with skepticism!

--- End quote ---

Then in the very next sentence:

--- Quote ---If you disagree with another's data, evidence or hypothesis then you put up your own and the competition of that circle is generally to be published and peer reviewed.

--- End quote ---

That's called being skeptical of their results  :palm:
It's a natural part of the process. You may not call it skepticism, but that's basically what it is. It may be because you happen to already have data that proves otherwise, but (most?) often it's you thinking "Hmm, this doesn't sound right...", a gut feeling, a hunch, hairs on the back your neck, you smell something fishy etc etc. So your inherent questioning/skepticism of those result leads you to do your own further research.

--- End quote ---

How about YOU go look at a definition of the word! It broadly means to 'doubt the 'truth'. It is one step up from some conspiracy nutter with no qualifications in a field making an ambit claim.

Questioning the truth as I stated several posts back is fine and I have zero issues wiuth that but you sure as hell need to be able to back it up with hard fact and evidence and this is in this case Science.

This is where this debate and other like it goes off the rails because of demands that 'my truth' is more powerful than actual Science which remains  :bullshit:

--- End quote ---
Er, no. The usual definition is something like "doubt as to the truth of something". You got it backwards.
EEVblog:

--- Quote from: beanflying on August 12, 2023, 11:49:57 am ---How about YOU go look at a definition of the word! It broadly means to 'doubt the 'truth'. It is one step up from some conspiracy nutter with no qualifications in a field making an ambit claim.
--- End quote ---

If you are debating the exact meaing of a word then you have automatically lost the argument. You know very well what I mean.
RAPo:
There is a difference:

Scepticism is a questioning attitude or doubt toward knowledge claims that are seen as mere belief or dogma.
This can be an attitude or a way of life.
There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, it can be healthy for progress in science.

This thread seems more about science denial, as the image below indicates.
That image can be applied to both "climate change is induced by (primarily) humans" believers and "climate change is there but not necessarily due to humans (alone)" arguments.

Do the research, don't follow blindly sweeping statements.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod