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. CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING. FIGHTING THE WRONG BATTLES. PT 1.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING ARE NOT THE SAME, BUT ARE OFTEN USED INTERCHANGEABLY. FOR OUR PURPOSE, BOTH WILL BE INCLUDED IN THIS ARTICLE.)

                                                                                                                       

 

IT IS UNFORTUNATE, BUT THE REAL REASON THAT THESE TOPICS CAUSE SO MUCH CONTROVERSY IS TWO-FOLD:

 -  MANY PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD,

THIS INCLUDES BOTH POLITICIANS AND VOTERS.

The Scientific Method, and what makes it a Valuable Tool, is sometimes not presented in a way that sets it apart from those Opinions that are Derived from MINDSETS That Are Essentially Useless, when discussing Phenomena that Occurs in Nature.

SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?

First and Foremost, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS NOT A SET OF BELIEFS, WITH A DOCTRINE THAT PASSES JUDGMENT ON A CATEGORY OR SUBJECT, LABELING THEM AS EITHER SCIENTIFIC OR UNSCIENTIFIC.

Like the RULES OF LOGIC AND MATHEMATICS, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS A PROCESS, THAT LEADS TO ANSWERS AND CONCLUSIONS THAT EITHER DEFINITIVELY EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE, DATA AND INFORMATION PROVIDED, OR OFFERS HYPOTHESES THAT POINT OR DIRECT US TO THE MOST PROBABLE SOLUTIONS.

We do not use the Scientific Method to Evaluate Subjects, that by Definition, do not rely on LOGIC OR EVIDENCE-BASED MATERIAL TO BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTHFUL, SUCH AS RELIGIOUS FAITH OR OTHER SUPERNATURAL  SYSTEMS OF BELIEF.

-  DISCUSSING OR DEBATING THE PROBLEM OFTEN MISSES THE POINT.

When you DISCUSS OR DEBATE ANY SUBJECT, THERE ARE CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT MUST BE MET, OR THE RESULT WILL BE ESSENTIALLY USELESS.

SEE PART 2.  

LOGIC. WHY SHOULD WE STUDY LOGIC? PT 3. SEEING PEOPLE AND THINGS AS THEY REALLY ARE.

RELIGIOUS/SPIRITUAL FAITH.

MIRACULOUS EVENTS.

SUPERNATURAL BEINGS.

RELIGIOUS TEXTS ETC.

Are not considered to be Included in the Realm of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, (WHICH BY NECESSITY, INCLUDES THE RULES OF LOGIC), BECAUSE THE BELIEF IN THEIR TRUTH OR REALITY DOES NOT REQUIRE EVIDENCE, OR ANY KIND OF JUSTIFICATION THROUGH INTELLECTUAL INQUIRY.

If One Reads the CHRISTIAN BIBLE, THE TORAH, THE KORAN etc,, the Interpretation or Meaning is left to those who study the CONTENTS, IN THE CONTEXT OF HOW IT SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THEIR PARTICULAR FAITH.  SCIENCE, AND THE RULES OF LOGIC, DO NOT COME INTO THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE FAITH ALLOWS FOR CONTRADICTIONS, MIRACULOUS EVENTS, DIVINE INTERVENTION, AND OTHER CLAIMS, WHICH BY DEFINITION, DO NOT REQUIRE PROOF TO THOSE WHO ACCEPT THEIR REALITY.

IN OTHER WORDS:  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ARGUE THAT SOMETHING EXISTS OR DOESN'T EXIST, OR , AN EVENT OCCURRED OR DIDN'T OCCUR, IF THE BELIEVER WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY EXPLANATION, PROOF, OR CONCLUSION THAT CONTRADICTS THEIR FAITH.  THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN:

THE NATURAL WORLD-  WHERE REALITY CAN BE EXAMINED, TESTED, STUDIED AND UNDERSTOOD BY THE HUMAN MIND.

THE SUPERNATURAL WORLD-  A HYPOTHETICAL REALM THAT EXISTS APART FROM THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, AND IS NOT BOUND BY ITS LAWS.

THERE IS NO INHERENT PROBLEM IN BELIEVING THAT EACH CAN EXIST, IF YOU THEM SET APART, AND UNDERSTAND THAT THEY CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD PROPERLY, BY ATTEMPTING TO MEASURE THE EXISTENCE OF EACH BY PROPERTIES THAT CANNOT, BY DEFINITION, BE FOUND IN BOTH.

THE TRUE ENEMIES OF RELIGION AND SCIENCE, ARE THOSE WHO TRY TO FORCE THEIR "FAITH" ON OTHERS, BY CLAIMING THAT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD "PROVES" THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM.

HOWEVER, IT WON'T WORK.  YOU CAN'T BEND, CHANGE, OR ALTER PHYSICAL LAWS TO ADAPT TO YOUR DESIRED CONCLUSION.  YOU MAKE YOURSELF SOUND DESPERATE, AND DESTROY THE VERY OF ESSENCE AND FOUNDATION OF "RELIGIOUS FAITH".

LOGIC. WHY SHOULD WE STUDY LOGIC? PART 2. SEEING PEOPLE AND THINGS AS THEY REALLY ARE.

                                                                            

Now you may be Thinking, "If LOGIC IS SO IMPORTANT, WHY DON'T THEY TEACH IT AT AN EARLY AGE, AND HOW COME SO FEW PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE REALMS OF SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY KNOW SO LITTLE ABOUT THE SUBJECT?"

Because LOGIC, WHEN STUDIED AND USED PROPERLY, IS THE ULTIMATE "REALITY SHOW."  EVEN SOME OF THOSE IN OCCUPATIONS DEDICATED TO LEARNING AND APPLYING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, WILL ABANDON IT WHEN IT COMES TO SITUATIONS OUTSIDE THEIR CHOSEN FIELD.

WHY?

-  LOGIC IS A TOOL, NOT A SET OF BELIEFS.

-  LOGIC DOESN'T DISCRIMINATE.  EITHER YOUR 

ARGUMENT IS PROPERLY STRUCTURED AND VALID,

OR IT ISN'T, AND THE TRUTH OF YOUR CONCLUSION

RELIES ON THE PREMISES.

-  ALL ASSERTIONS MUST BE DEFENDED, NOTHING

IS ACCEPTED AT FACE VALUE.

-  IF YOUR PREMISES ARE UNSUPPORTABLE, THAN 

YOUR CONCLUSION IS VALUELESS.

HOW DOES THIS TRANSLATE TO REAL LIFE SITUATIONS?

LOGIC SHINES A LIGHT ON;

-  PREJUDICE.

-  PRECONCEIVED CONCLUSIONS.

-  IRRATIONAL LINES OF THOUGHT.

-  UNJUSTIFIED DECISIONS THAT HIGHLIGHT 

   A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND IGNORANCE  

   OF THE SUBJECT MATTER.

In other words;

All the RHETORIC, LIP SERVICE, AND NEWS

BITES IN THE WORLD ABOUT EQUALITY, JUSTICE

RIGHTS, etc., will mean nothing if they cannot stand up

to the Scrutiny of APPLIED LOGIC.

LOGIC DOES NOT FOCUS ON WHAT YOU 

BELIEVE TO BE TRUE...

...BUT WHY YOU BELIEVE IT.