/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2272386]

To all evolution and global warming deniers.

Do you really think that virtually any argument you offer in threads -that you believe to be proof of your position- would actually trump entire fields of scientific inquiry?

Do you really think that a generalised rhetorical argument or unsupported shred of evidence is equitable to literally millions of man-years of intellectual endeavour and observation?

So why bother and reveal you understand nothing about how science is conducted?

[Anonymous No.2272400]

>>Do you really think that virtually any argument you offer in threads -that you believe to be proof of your position- would actually trump entire fields of scientific inquiry?

Yes there exist people who think that their own layman's rationale, or an anecdote, or a play on words/semantics game trumps entire fields of science.

Cope with it like I did, start drinking and don't ever stop.

[Anonymous No.2272412]

>>2272386
>evolution
Because Jesus
>global warming
Because conservatives

[Anonymous No.2272439]

Yes, I can believe that my personal opinions are better than a niche field filled with quacks and pseudoscientists. Evolutionary biology and climatology are not such ridiculous fields, but I can buy into the basic premise that a random internet argument could trump an entire field of scientific inquiry.
Also where's your source on "literally millions of man-years"

[Anonymous No.2272444]

>implying there are any climatologists who are not also political activists support global warming claims.

[sage No.2272448]

>>2272439
>I can buy into the basic premise that a random internet argument could trump an entire field of scientific inquiry

[Anonymous No.2272451]

>>2272444
>implying global warming denial isn't politically motivated

[Anonymous No.2272457]

>>2272386
The average person does not think logically. This is very very troublesome to me.

It's simple to find this out: Argue with a normal person about something unimportant for at least 10 minutes. While sometimes their starting assumptions are wrong, that's not what I want you to take notice of. Look at the leaps they make.

They're absolutely horrid. How anyone can mess up a line or reasoning by misunderstanding THE CONNECTION BETWEEN TWO STEPS is beyond me.

[Anonymous No.2272463]

>>2272444

>implying there are any climatologists who are not also political activists support global warming claims.

You really believe this? It's not the scientists politicizing the issue, it's religious conservatives, who you've decided to believe instead.

[Anonymous No.2272466]

>>2272457
>deleted for error correction
The average person does not think logically. This is very very troublesome to me.

It's simple to find this out: Argue with a normal person about something unimportant for at least 10 minutes. While sometimes their starting assumptions are wrong, that's not what I want you to take notice of. Look at the leaps they make.

They're absolutely horrid. How anyone can mess up a line of reasoning by misunderstanding THE CONNECTION BETWEEN TWO STEPS is beyond me.

[Anonymous No.2272482]

>>2272463
It's not the conservatives who started the IPCC, moron.
inb4 the IPCC is a scientific organization.

[Anonymous No.2272505]

>>2272463
I don't believe anyone. I believe facts and hypotheses that are well-supported by them. These things are not on the side of global warming.

[Anonymous No.2272515]

>>2272505

>I believe facts and hypotheses that are well-supported by them. These things are not on the side of global warming.

7/10

[Anonymous No.2272572]

>>2272505

But they are, you've been misled by conservative radio/television hosts. While you may not personally listen to them, that's where the denialism talking points ultimately trace back to:

http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/71473.html?wlc=1293747869