Trump needs to STFU!

[Alex K]

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.

Yes, of course, it doesn't.

Most of the arguments that science makes are actually invalid.

Wait, now you lost me. Where does science make invalid arguments?

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:
[...] This is the power of maths!

Oh, I see, tentative scientific conclusions, if we did treat them like absolute deductions, would be invalid. But we don't.

Also, I don't understand your logic concerning your criticism of climate science: thanks for the kindergarden lecture on the difference between mathematics and "science", where you've explained that science cannot use deduction of conclusions from empirical observations. Why though do you single out above commentary on the greenhouse effect in your criticism for lacking strict deductive power, when no scientific finding can have that? I'd even go further and say that a conclusion based on well-established physical laws bears more resemblance to deductive reasoning than a more or less theory-free experiment with a control group.

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.

Heh, are we pompous much?

---

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!

And meanwhile you have no problem to tentatively accept the opposite conclusion even though the weight of evidence is against it, because you like it better. All your caps locks and simple minded logic lectures don't hide that.