FEATURE ARTICLES. CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING- FIGHTING THE WRONG BATTLES. PT 5.

WHAT CAN WE DO?

When you are Faced with TWO DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSING VIEWS IN A DEBATE CONCERNING THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, WHICH BY DEFINITION MUST INCLUDE NATURAL LAW AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, HERE ARE SOME WAYS TO JUDGE THE QUALITY OF THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED:

-  MAKE SURE THEY ARE VALIDLY CONSTRUCTED. IF NOT, POINT IT OUT, AND ASK WHY?

-  ARE ALL PREMISES FACTUAL IN CONTENT, OR ARE THEY ASSUMPTIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN TO BE TRUE?

-  ALL STATISTICS MUST BE SOURCED PROPERLY, WHICH INCLUDES METHODOLOGY.

If these Three Conditions cannot, or will not, be Satisfied to the agreement of each side, then you Won't have a Debate, or a Discussion that will Yield Meaningful Information. Discerning or Finding Truth is not aided by Tactics Designed to Mask Deceive, or Avoid Answering Valid and Evidentiary Questions.

APART FROM ABOVE, HERE ARE SOME OTHER TECHNIQUES THAT COULD HELP TO IDENTIFY WHICH OPINIONS ARE GROUNDED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, AND THOSE THAT ARE LITTLE MORE THAN SMOKE AND MIRRORS.

-  ASK BOTH SIDES TO PRESENT THE THREE STRONGEST POINTS THAT SUPPORT THEIR OPINIONS OR CONCLUSIONS.

THEN EVALUATE EACH POINT ON ITS OWN, TO SEE IF THEY STAND ON THEIR OWN MERITS, OR ARE DEPENDENT ON THE OTHER(S).

-  GIVEN WHAT CAN BE REASONABLY KNOWN ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER THAT IS NOT UNDER CONTENTION, HOW DO THE CONCLUSIONS 

THEY ARE ASSERTING FIT WITH ESTABLISHED FACTS?

-  WHAT MISTAKES THE OPPOSITION HAS MADE IN THEIR ANALYSIS, AND HOW CAN THEY BE CORRECTED?

FINALLY, THE MOMENT OF TRUTH. 

ASK EACH THE FOLLOWING:

IF IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE ARGUMENT(S) YOU ARE MAKING ARE INVALID, OR NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, WOULD IT MAKE YOU RECONSIDER YOUR POSITION?

IF NOT,

WHAT TYPE OF ARGUMENT, OR FORM OF EVIDENCE, WOULD YOU ACCEPT AS INDICATIVE THAT YOUR CONCLUSION OR OPINION IS UNFOUNDED, AND THAT THE OPPOSITION IS CORRECT?

TRUE SCIENTISTS WOULD NOT BE AFRAID OF THESE QUESTIONS. IF THEIR POSITION IS REASONABLE, AND PROPERLY CONSTRUCTED, SUCH INQUIRIES WOULD BE WELCOME.

Date-  12/3/2015.

FEATURE ARTICLES. CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING- FIGHTING THE WRONG BATTLES. PT 4.

Now that we have Set Standards for how EVIDENCE WILL BE ACCUMULATED AND EVALUATED, EVERYTHING IS READY FOR A REASONABLE AND VALID DEBATE, WITH THE RULES OF LOGIC AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD SHOWING THE WAY TO JUDGMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS THAT MUST BE ACCEPTED BY ALL, RIGHT?

Unfortunately, all to often, the Arguments of One, or even both sides of an Issue, are just there to DISGUISE THE TRUE PURPOSE FOR DEFENDING A CERTAIN CONCLUSION OR JUDGMENT.

If the Motives of One Side IS COMPLETELY SELF-SERVING, WITH A PRIORITY TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO, THE DESIRE TO CREATE CONFUSION, HOSTILITY, PREJUDICE etc, WILL WORK TO CHANGE THE DEBATE FROM A SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION OF A SPECIFIC PHENOMENA, TO AREAS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER.

A Few Things to Remember:

-  BEING ELECTED, APPOINTED, OR IN ANY WAY SELECTED TO HOLD A PUBLIC OFFICE, DOES NOT GUARANTEE EXPERTISE IN ANY SUBJECT OR DISCIPLINE.

-  IN MY EXPERIENCE, THE VAST MAJORITY OF  PhDs, MDs, JDs, AND OTHER RECOGNIZED AUTHORITIES ARE HONEST AND TRUSTWORTHY, AND WILL GIVE AN UNBIASED AND WELL REASONED OPINION ON A SUBJECT RELATED TO THEIR FIELD. HOWEVER, THERE ARE A FEW WHO IGNORE HONOR AND TRUST TO FURTHER THEIR OWN INTERESTS, OR WHO FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE FAULTS IN THE ARGUMENTS THEY HAVE PUT FORTH, DUE TO HUBRIS AND AN UNWILLINGNESS TO EVALUATE THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS WITH THE SAME DEDICATION THAT THEY WOULD USE TO JUDGE OTHERS.

-  LOGIC AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DO NO CHANGE ACCORDING TO EDUCATION, ABILITY, OR PREVIOUS ACHIEVEMENTS. THE DEFINITION OF AN INVALID OR IRRATIONAL ARGUMENT IS THE SAME FOR EVERYONE.

-  BEING AN ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERT IN ONE FIELD, DOES NOT MAKE SOMEONE AN EXPERT IN ALL SUBJECTS FOR WHICH THEY GIVE AN OPINION.

WHAT CAN WE DO?  LOOK FOR PART 5.

Date-  12/1/2015.

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. ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION- IS IT THE RALLYING CRY OF THE BIGOT? PART 1.

As we in the U.S. head into another election cycle, meaningful debate is again giving way to finding issues that prey on the emotional psyche of the average voter. Candidates are looking to polarize certain voting blocks, by offering personal opinions on certain controversial Topics.

Often, this is not done by Intellectual Reflection,  but with the intent to appeal to the Baser nature of Humanity. This is best exemplified in the reasoning given by some Politicians running for office, in how they arrived at the positions taken on specific issues.  

For Example;

IMMIGRATION-  At the time of this writing, Immigration Law seems to be the most

important issue for the average voter, in how it is interpreted and enforced.

Unfortunately, there is a profound misunderstanding about what the term IMMIGRANT ACTUALLY MEANS, AND HOW IT IS OFTEN MISUSED BY INDIVIDUALS WITH A SPECIFIC POLITICAL AGENDA.

To clarify, here are definitions for certain words, that will help us find the truth.

( These are my definitions. However, I encourage my readers to Research other 

possible meanings for these terms.)

Immigration-  Is simply the act of changing ones Home or Residence, from one place to another.  For the purpose of this article, it will refer to Citizens or Nationals of one Country, seeking to move inside the borders or areas controlled by another Nation.  This can be either a Permanent or Temporary arrangement.

Refugee Status-  The desire of Individuals to seek sanctuary within the borders of another Nation, to avoid extreme hardship occurring in their Home Country.  This can include Acts of Violence, Famine or Environmental Disasters.  Humanitarian Aid is usually offered to the Refugee by the Nation granting them safe haven, to alleviate hardships already suffered.

Immigrant and Refugee are not one and the same.  An Immigrant desires to remain as a Resident for a given period of time, or permanently.  A Refugee is given sanctuary only as long as the situation within their Homeland merits it.  They are expected to return once the situation has been stabilized.  Refugees may apply for Immigrant Status, but it is not granted automatically. 

END OF PART 1.