Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
Exactly. You CHOOSE to believe the particular side of the debate based on the information fed to you. You CHOOSE to ignore or disbelieve the other side of the debate (mostly, because of the way it gets presented in social and mass-media). So, your conviction (position) is based on a pure belief in one side being right, not on any meaningful understanding of the issue. Politicians need these beliefs of general public to get more public support of their agenda.
Science should have nothing to do with beliefs. A lot of current climate change science is not based on fact, but on hypothesis supported by observational, archaeological and statistical factual evidence of changes to temperatures, weather events and oceanic levels, some of which could be attributed to human activities. It may be right, or part-right, or a small part-right, or wrong. There is plenty of proof contradicting this hypothesis; however. Scientists should be making their hypothesis and other scientists should be able to challenge them freely and without fear of repercussions. The debate must continue.
|
Actually no, I choose to believe one side of the debate because the process of inductive reasoning points to it being the most likely explanation. For me to believe that climate change isn't likely man-made, it would require me to additionally believe that the most prominent institutions and experts who are tasked with studying the subject matter are either grossly incompetent or actively attempting to deceive the public for their own personal gain. What evidence is there to suggest that either of those scenarios are true?
This doesn't mean I believe these institutions are infallible, and I am open to the possibility that they are wrong, but that possibility will continue to seem less likely to me until there is sufficient evidence which demonstrates otherwise.