Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (18666)	12/19/2007 3:02:27 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

1 - You haven't substantiated any claim that I have odd ideas in this area. You admirably substantiated them. You claimed that all of the common methods of creationists and AGW deniers were in fact just find methods for how to determine what is and is not good science. You also fail to understand that common thought methods are more important for determining common outcomes than wearing common cloth styles. That illustrates the difference between someone who thinks science is logic vs induction based. Very few of our complex system level theories in science are watertight when viewed from a rigid logic standpoint (certainly not evolution) but they are excellent from an induction or statistical view. True for both evolution and climate science. It is very common for Libertarians (they love Popper) to confuse science with logic. With evolution, you don't seem to see the logical holes, or don't worry about them. But with climate science, the logical holes are all you see. You lack consistency.