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 too 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.

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.

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.