Trump needs to STFU!

[BlackMason]

Interesting. Can you elaborate on what this distinction means in our case here? I don't see how your use of these words adds anything except needlessly simplistic jargon to our understanding of the issue.

Yeah sure. I think it's of fundamental importance to actually understand what science is if you're going to talk about it. First, science is tentative. This means that if we find new information in the future it could turn our previous conclusions on their head. Science does not make absolute claims. Most of the arguments that science makes are actually invalid. But what they lack in validity they more than make up for in inductive strength. What is this inductive reasoning you ask? Read on if you're interested

Inductive reasoning and validity:
The best way to explain inductive reasoning is by way of example:

1) Jane fell off a building.
C) Jane is dead

The premise "Jane fell off a building" is strong enough for us to accept the conclusion that "Jane is dead". But watch this:

1) Jane fell off a building
2) She landed in a swimming pool
C) Jane is dead

Notice that the inclusion of the second premise makes us believe the conclusion less than in the first example. This notion of changing our willingness to accept the conclusion given the premises is known as inductive strength.

Now moving on to validity. An argument is valid if the premises logically entail the conclusion. For example in the first argument with only one premise, falling off a building does not entail death. Perhaps Jane fell off the first floor and broke her arm. She still fell off the building but that does not necessitate death. So the argument is actually invalid. This is the same for the second argument with the swimming component added.

Unlike science, mathematics uses DEDUCTIVE reasoning. This means that if you construct your proof correctly your conclusion will ALWAYS be right no matter what. It doesn't matter if the pope becomes black or new discoveries come into play. If you constructed your proof correctly your conclusion will always be right! This is the power of maths!

Haha, I'm aware of that. I don't need to try sounding smarter using fancy words, I was just snarkily exaggerating your position a bit to drive home my point that you make unreasonable demands towards climate science.

I don't make unreasonable demands. I think you came here thinking you could have a conversation of this nature with me. But you needed a little fast tracking so you could understand my post in a better context. I hope I've cleared things up a little.

---

I think it's worth while for me to explain the way I operate with regard to these expert opinions. Someone mentioned that 99.9% of scientists agree. That is not enough for me to accept based on this. Yes it does have some persuasive value but I'd rather find out how they performed the experiments. What was the control? What did the data say? Were there any significant assumptions made? How do they affect the credibility of the conclusions?

Case and point that demonstrates the importance to understand the data. In a previous post in this thread I showed how the same data actually pointed to rapid climate change occurring naturally. THEREFORE, I NEED MORE DEMONSTRATION TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION. I then examine the control. THERE IS NO CONTROL. THEREFORE, I AM NOT SATISFIED although I agree on a lesser level.

Maybe Trump doesn't need to STFU!