THE MYSTERIOUS WORLD. THE WORLD OF CRYPTOZOOLOGY. PART 1.

They would be hard to miss, especially on the Large Cable Networks.  T.V. Shows based on the Search for Earths most Legendary and Elusive Creatures.

It could be BIGFOOT, YETI, LOCH NESS MONSTER, MOKELE-

MBEMBE, or dozens of others.

They can be found on virtually every Continent, and in all the Seven Seas. 

It could be the Desert, Jungle, Forest, Mountains etc., no Habitat is lacking their presence.

Stories about their Existence, Manner of Living, and Cultural Influence are found in the History of many different Populations and Societies.  They are part of Religious Belief Systems, and are often claimed to have "Supernatural" and "God Like" Powers.

Many famous people have believed in, and searched for, Physical Evidence of their existence. Time and Money were often considered to be Unimportant, it was a labor of love. Lack of success, never seemed to discourage many searchers. Expeditions were mounted and carried out, regardless of past results.

Yet, CRYPTOZOOLOGY, (The study of such Creatures), is considered to be Pseudoscience.  The Academic World dismisses this subject, and considers it to be Irrelevant when discussing Nature, and the Animals that are part of it.

Why is this?  Because Cryptozoologists make the same mistakes that are found in other Fringe and Unverified Theories.

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.