FEATURE ARTICLES. CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING- FIGHTING THE WRONG BATTLES. PT 3.

Alright, we have Defined the Subject Matter to be Debated, and we have TWO DISTINCT OPINIONS THAT RUN CONTRARY TO EACH OTHER.  Since They both cannot be ACCURATE AND TRUE, HOW DO WE SET UP THE DEBATE TO ARRIVE AT THE MOST LIKELY CONCLUSION?

2-  WHAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE WILL BE CONSIDERED RELEVANT, AND HOW WILL ITS ACCURACY AND INFLUENCE UPON THE SUBJECT MATTER BE MEASURED?

Remember, this is a DEBATE ABOUT SCIENCE, NOT POLITICS OR MORALITY.  ACCEPTING ONE SIDE, OR THE OTHER SIDE AS TRUE, CANNOT BE JUDGED BY POLITICAL, SOCIAL, OR ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS.

If We Take the CLIMATE CHANGE/ GLOBAL WARMING DISCUSSION OR DEBATE AS AN EXAMPLE, WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING:

Whether or Not the EARTHS CLIMATE IS CHANGING, AND/OR GLOBAL WARMING IS FACTUAL, DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE CURRENT COMMERCIAL RELATIONS AND TRADING PRACTICES BETWEEN COUNTRIES. POSSIBLE ECONOMIC UPHEAVAL WILL NOT ALTER PAST READINGS ON TEMPERATURE CHANGE, ATMOSPHERIC PHENOMENA, OR WEATHER ANOMALIES.

Since We  Must Use LOGIC AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO REACH CONCLUSIONS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING, QUALITY EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY MUST BE;

-  VERIFIABLE.

-  QUANTIFIABLE.

-  TESTABLE.

-  REPRODUCIBLE.

-  FALSIFIABLE. 

PROPER CONTROLS MUST HAVE ALSO BEEN USED TO ELIMINATE THE 

POSSIBILITY OF ALTERING OR TAINTING THE RESULTS.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ARE LEFT UNTIL AFTER THE
DEBATE OR DISCUSSION HAS BEEN SETTLED, AND A VALID CONSENSUS

AGREES WITH THE FINDINGS.

Date- 11/25/2015.

FEATURE ARTICLES. CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING- FIGHTING THE WRONG BATTLES. PT 2.

QUITE SIMPLY, BEFORE ANY REAL DISCUSSION BEGINS, THE FOLLOWING ARE NECESSARY, AND MUST BE AGREED UPON.

1-  Define the Subject to be Discussed, to the point where both sides agree.

This may seem to be COMMON SENSE, with each side knowing why They are Involved, but it is not. It's far to Easy for One Side, who find that Their Viewpoint is going down to Defeat, to Argue that the Opposition has Misrepresented or Failed to Understand the Position they are Taking.

This Isn't Difficult, unless there are Clear and Understandable Definitions that Distinctly Separate both sides of the Issue, and leave no room for Vague Interpretations about what Constitutes the Opinions being presented.

Vague and Simplistic Definitions are a sign of Intellectual Laziness, and/or a Lack of Commitment or Confidence in the Subject or Topic being Discussed or Debated.

Further, if we have an Unclear Distinction between Similar Terms, (Global Warming and Climate Change are Perfect Examples.), the Confusion to the LAY PERSON MAY MAKE UNDERSTANDING EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT.

If One Side Insists on USING ILL-DEFINED WORDS OR TERMS, AND WILL NOT ADEQUATELY PRESENT THE SUBJECT MANNER IN A CONCISE AND UNDERSTANDABLE MANNER, A DEBATE OR DISCUSSION IS NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF ANYONE, EXCEPT THOSE USING DECEPTIVE TACTICS NOT TO TEACH, EXPLAIN, OR JUSTIFY, BUT TO PUSH AN AGENDA THEY CAN'T REASONABLY DEFEND.

Agreeing to Debate or Discuss an ISSUE UNDER THESE CONDITIONS WOULD BE FOOLISH AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.  IT WOULD GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT BOTH SIDES ARE READY AND ABLE TO PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT IN A WAY DESIGNED TO FIND REAL ANSWERS AND SOLUTIONS. 

This, Of Course, would not be True. So, if one side DECIDES SCORING POINTS FOR POLITICAL GAIN MEANS DECEIVING AND MISLEADING THE PUBLIC, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE OPPOSITION POINT THIS OUT, AND EXPLAIN WHY A DEBATE WOULD BE MEANINGLESS. THEY NEED TO STRESS THE IRRATIONAL AND UNSCIENTIFIC TACTICS THAT WOULD DO NOTHING BUT HARM THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH.

FEATURE ARTICLES. ONCE AND FOR ALL...SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DOES NOT VIOLATE STATES RIGHTS. PT 1.

I have addressed this issue before,which includes a multi-part

article published on examiner.com

during the 2012 election.

However, States Rights Advocates, most recently Arizona, are again screaming that they are being forced to legalize Gay Marriage. 

Unfortunately, the arguments set forth by myself and others, are again being ignored by sections of the public who wish to impose their religious doctrine on every American.

 

One major qualification; While the most politically active and vocal seem to be individuals and groups who claim to be Christian-  DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS AGREE WITH THIS LINE OF REASONING.  It is amazing to me the number of people who claim to represent the "True Faith", being a spokesperson for everyone else.

So, in the interest of clarification, let us answer the following;

Myth #1- Currently, States that have not legalized Same-Sex Marriage are being forced to allow such ceremonies, and they must be legally recognized.- Absolutely not. Unless such a law has been struck down by litigation brought before the Court, no State which has laws prohibiting Homo-Sexual Marriage is required to recognize such ceremonies as legally valid, if performed within its' jurisdiction.

Myth #2- If a State legalizes Same-Sex Marriage, Churches will be required to allow these unions within their walls.- Again, not true.  Houses of Faith are allowed to perform or not perform any rituals they so choose.  Civil Rights Laws are not binding on them, as long as they are not receiving public funds.  In other words, no one is going to force you, your spiritual leaders or your congregation to arrange for or attend any function that violates a given Moral Belief System.

End PT 1.

Date-  3/14/2014.

Scroll down for future posts.  

FEATURE ARTICLES. WHAT DOES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY SAY ABOUT RELIGION? PT 3.

In continuation of this article, I would like to address another Church\State issue that is often used as political rhetoric to smear opponents. 

The PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- An expression of loyalty to the Republic and the Flag used to start many public and private meetings in the U.S.  It is most often referred to in the tradition of being recited by school children to start each day.

The Pledge was written in 1892 by FRANCIS BELLAMY, a Baptist Minister.  The following is the original text published by Bellamy;

" I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the republic for which it stands,

one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

As you can see, contrary to those who don't bother to check basic U.S. History, there is no reference to religion or faith within the wording.  It is an oath that binds the individual to the responsibility of being a citizen.  This includes recognizing the Flag as the symbol that represents the physical embodiment of the meaning contained within the Pledge.

Yes, I know the current version includes the words "...under God...". However, this version was adopted in 1954 and was the last of four changes that were made in the text since its' inception.

This change insults all Americans, for it implies that one is not truly loyal to the United States, until they repeat an oath that is purely religious in nature.  This flies in the face of the intent contained within the wording of the Constitution.  It is simply a way to circumvent religious freedom that is guaranteed to all citizens.

Date- 12/17/2013.