|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
well, there is merit to arguing "against" climate change. ive noticed positions are much more nuanced that is the narrative. geophysicists do use hard science to show why the earth may be warming and the statistics suggest a level of probability that it is, but then they jump to wild conclusions about where it's going based on that. the other side sees the wild conclusions for the baseless they are, but then make the mistake of denying much probability of climate change being real.
Sure, sure. There's merit in understanding it all and engaging on the front of what should or could be done. But that's not where Cruz is laying down the line. Hear him here: http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459026...-ted-cruz-says
argument is empty the same way that a description of gravity is empty. the description is not the thing itself. but a description of gravity can be evaluated on the merits, just like any argument. argument can't be invalid because if it were that would mean that there's no way to describe validity. unless ofc you want to accept that premise, at which point the argument against argument is self-defeated and pointless.
Well, argument is empty in the exact opposite way as the description of gravity being empty. Gravity is predictive and it can tell you about the past, there's meaning in it. And there can be meaning in argument, if both participants have a strong mastery of the facts, have a reverence and respect for them, and are dedicated to the argument bringing everyone closer to the Truth with a capital T. That almost never happens.
There's a story about some mathematician or scientist who was proven wrong and was glad for it. He didn't worry about the time he had wasted perusing whatever he was on about incorrectly, nor did he worry about missing his chance to cement his place in the history of science, he was just glad to be shown wrong.
Argument is empty in every other way, but still useful. That's what Buckley and Vidal knew, that it doesn't have to be about the issues as much as it has to be about the other person and the audience. It's not about battling out ideas to strengthen them or see one as clearly superior, it's just about figuring out who should be following whom.
|
Reply With Quote
