Archives for posts with tag: observation

The article and the comments are worth reading and applicable to any debate. A commitment to truth is a commitment to all that is good–a commitment to life itself. ——————–

Readers may recall my original post, Nature’s ugly decision: ‘Deniers’ enters the scientific literature. followed by Dr. Paul Bain Responds to Critics of Use of “Denier” Term with thanks to Jo Nova, be sure to bookmark and visit her site Dr. Robert G. Brown of Duke University, commenting as rgbatduke, made a response that was commented on by several here in that thread. As commenter REP put it in the update: It is eloquent, insightful and worthy of consideration. I would say, it is likely the best response I’ve ever seen on the use of the “denier” term, not to mention the CAGW issue in general. Thus, I’ve elevated it a full post. Please share the link to this post widely. – Anthony

Dr. Robert G. Brown writes:The tragic thing about the thoughtless use of a stereotype denier is that it reveals that you really think of people in terms of its projected meaning. In particular, even in your response you seem to equate the term “skeptic” with “denier of AGW”.

via A response to Dr. Paul Bain’s use of ‘denier’ in the scientific literature | Watts Up With That?.

This post at WUWT is worth reading, and the comments, even more so. Brown is a rather sharp fellow.

“Robert Brown says:

March 1, 2012 at 8:29 pm

For the general public that does not have an objective scientific bend, how do you tell virtual reality from the real thing?

That’s a serious problem, actually. Hell, I have an objective scientific bend and I have plenty of trouble with it.

Ultimately, the stock answer is: We should believe the most what we can doubt the least, when we try to doubt very hard, using a mix of experience and consistent reason based on a network of experience-supported best (so far) beliefs.

That’s not very hopeful, but it is accurate. We believe Classical Non-Relativistic Mechanics after Newton invents it, not because it is true but because it works fairly consistently to describe Kepler’s purely observational laws, and…”

via Climate Science and Special Relativity | Watts Up With That?.

%d bloggers like this: