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.

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.