Really? You can't even remember what you posted last week? Sounds like you need a checkup, fido. You may have early onset Alzheimers.
Originally Posted by lustylad
You are ignoring context. This was in a thread titled "What type of guy supports Hillary" with a statement made in the first post "I see a pattern, they're all dumbfucks." And give a link showing the actual patterns of the counties that support Trump. Of course, I offer up facts that support the pattern, and you attack me for it. But when bambino says all Clinton supporters dumbfucks (if, of course, you twist his statement in the same way), you're hypocritically mum. No surprise.
You're a babbling idiot. Any fool can posit a theory.
Originally Posted by lustylad
No, you're wrong. This is not a crime detective show. We are talking about science. You don't posit a theory, but a hypothesis. Once there has been a lot of testing and confirmation of the hypothesis, only then does it become a theory.
Seriously, this is basic science here. It is pretty much the next thing you learn after the scientific method. I'm sure I learned this no later than 9th grade, but I am relatively sure that it was in 7th or 8th grade. I can't believe that I am having a debate about the science of something with people who don't even have a primary school level understanding of what a "scientific theory" is. By definition, it has to be falsifiable, which, by definition, stops science from ever declaring facts.
Not all theories are equally plausible or supported by empirical data. If I roll out the theory that vaccines increase the risk of autism in newborns, do I get a gold medal?
No, because that wouldn't be a "theory," but a "hypothesis." Your hypothesis is the equivalent of a kid saying he wants to be in the Olympics one day. You've got a far way to go before you even sniff a medal.
If you want to argue that global warming is a theory we should take seriously, go right ahead.
Just like gravity is a theory we should take seriously.
But don't pretend you understand better than I do how science evaluates these things.
I don't have to pretend. The reality is that if you don't understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, when it comes to science, then it is clear that I understand this far better than you.
In fact, you just proved you don't have a fucking clue, since you said one scientific theory is as good as another.
I never said that. In fact, I alluded to the opposite when I said "Considering how overwhelming the agreement among experts is about AGW, the reality is that it is probably far more "established science" than how to deal with premature babies."
Of course some theories are stronger than others.
If you can't explain it yourself, how do you know it's valid?
I can explain it myself. But why would you believe my explanation over the explanation and evidence provided in numerous peer-reviewed papers written by experts? That makes no sense. On top of that, you've already thrown out the "framing fallacy" by attempting to make the debate solely about correlation between CO2 and temperature. Basically, you want me to answer a leading question that has little to do with the overall debate. The question is "why is the theory for AGW so strong" and you tried to get me to answer something different.
Aren't you at all curious to evaluate the data for yourself? Or is that beyond your capabilities?
I have, thank you. However, I am smart enough to realize that I am not an expert on the issue and will defer to the experts in the field. Just like I don't examine the designs of every plane I get into before deciding whether or not they are worthy of flight, I trust the experts who have designed, tested and evaluated the designs that they are safe.
