|
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Just can't help yourself from moving the goalpost
What exactly is your "goal"?
You remember that thing you just said? "Science isn't determined by consensus," you said.
Yeah. Remember how you decided to spend a half hour of your life typing a bullshit explanation of what you think "consensus" means just because you have a hard-on for me? That was weird. And just so you know, still, science isn't determined by consensus. Science and consensus are two completely different things. Science is constant, consensus isn't. Science never changes, just the consensus of our understanding of it does. And the consensus is often wrong.
The point is to distrust scientists, but to trust in your own ability to understand what they've done and if you can't find fault in it, then you begrudginly accept it.
NO. I'm not a climatologist, that doesn't mean I have to begrudgingly accept everything a climatologist says about climate. Fuck that. Using that same logic, Bill Barr is an attorney and you're not, so everything he says about the law you have to begrudgingly accept. Somehow that doesn't seem to hold true around here. Are you a soldier trained by the military? Are you an expert in wall-building? The consensus of those folks and the wall-builders say a ladder won't work. You refuse to begrudgingly accept that.
Both the current and former heads of border patrol say WE NEED A WALL. Are you ready to begrudgingly accept that?
You really are way out of line accusing me of irrational thinking when you talk like this. It's ok to be skeptical of consensus when ORANGE MAN BAD, but when it's your pet issue, or your profession that's getting challenged...suddenly your position changes to "NOD AND OBEY OR WE WILL CALL YOU DUMB"
Look at their methods, and see if you can find fault.
I did exactly that. You would know if you weren't such a close minded whelp who buries your head in the sand in the face of anything that refutes your argument. Did you watch the video? It does exactly what you're saying. It goes DEEP into the methods, and finds fault.
For example: 30,000+ scientists signed a government petition expressing a skeptical view of climate change. The response to that was "well, not enough of them are climate scientists....this isn't really a consensus". Mr. Crowder and I agree with that. We would just like that exact same standard applied to the tiny population of scientists who say "ZOMG". So there is some fault for you....inconsistent definitions of consensus.
Honestly, that whole video is "looking at their methods and finding fault". But you just wanna say "CROWDER BAD", which is a slur, not an argument.
|