So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I wasn't necessarily saying whether or not C02 causes global warming, I was just using it as an example. I was just trying to explain how the process of science works. Saying a scientist should try and disprove a theory has inherent flaws of bias. It is much more productive for the community if that scientists tries to prove his own theory. In doing so he may prove his theory right and in turn disprove the existing theory. Rockin' Flames post seemed like he was just wanted people to go out make up opposition on the other side just because the global warming theory isn't air tight. To disprove a theory you have to have evidence to back it up. What Rockin seems to be saying is that he believes that scientists are only looking at some of the evidence, when that is not the case.

Agreed, for the most part.

If we work on 'disproving' something...the existence of God would be scientific fact UNTIL it has been 'disproven.'

You have a valid point.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Azure

Agreed, for the most part.

If we work on 'disproving' something...the existence of God would be scientific fact UNTIL it has been 'disproven.'

You have a valid point.

Because there was a valid scientific theory of the existence of God in the first place?

Yah nice try.

I am talking about disproving other science, not everything that is claimed to exist.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

What does concern me is that more and more research is being done to continue to try to prove that it exists instead of trying to disprove it.

The final proof you don't have a clue. Science is about analysis of data, not about agenda. There's where you're completely lost. You think this issue arose from an agenda and someone was out to "create" something. The fact of the matter is that the findings of the data defined the thesis, and through continued observation a the trend defined the theory. Since then, the collection of data has continued, and with it a continued trend that lends support to one side of the theory. The data is the only thing that can disprove the theory, and only a continued collection of data using the same methodology can disprove the theory. This is where you, and those who do not understand the isuue, fall off the edge of the flat earth.

You fall back to other science that claims of other scientists with conflicting theories. Sadly, these scientists are not collecting data that will conflict the theory in question, they are just promoting theories of their own that have no support other than their own data. Other scientists are not doing research in these fringe areas and the results are not reproduceable in these other areas for many reasons (geology, atmosphere, methodology, etc.), but that does not stop their voice from being heard. This is like someone walking into a bakeoff and claiming the winner doesn't have the best recipe for muffins because the guy next door have just changed the oil in his car. Unrelated science conducted by less than scrupulous characters paid for by less than altruistic agents are clouding a very important topic. This is the reason why you should be concerned, not anything else.

BTW... you toss around terminology like "brainwashed" and crap like that, and you're going to get what you deserve, and that is being ripped to shreds. You want to talk about insults, comments like that are an insult to the intelligence of those who have actually taken the time to read a book or two on the subject, something I am very confident you have not.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Because there was a valid scientific theory of the existence of God in the first place?

Yah nice try.

I am talking about disproving other science, not everything that is claimed to exist.

Well that is my point.

If science is going to 'disprove' stuff...instead of 'proving' it...they would have to start proving negatives.

"I believe in the tooth fairy...prove to me he doesn't exist!"

I agree with you....doesn't work that way.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by llama64

Where did people get the ideas that documentaries are meant to promote unbiased, critical analyses of subject matter? Documentaries are meant to argue a specific viewpoint. It's like a video argumentative essay. Though some can merely explore an issue without coming to a point I suppose. Gore's film is not of that type.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Bull. Schools do it all the time. Heck, you've just finished arguing that it's okay for a public insitiution to promote what ever position they like, even if the evidence to support it is non-existent.

In your highly biased and uneducated opinion.

Yet you think religious indoctrination is a good thing. Which is more dangerous again? Exposing children to something that has tangible evidence to support it, or exposing children to a fanciful story that has no evidence to support it?

Wow, Lanny... where the heck are you coming from?

"Schools do it all the time" - has no bearing on whether the action is right or not. It's not a good thing and it needs to change.

My education is rather broad actually. Perhaps if you talked to people before berating them, you'd realize things like that.

When exactly did I say anything about exposing children to "fanciful stories that have to evidence"? And what is all this stuff about religion? Seriously, did you read my post?

To clarify, grade school education has no role presenting information in a biased medium of any sort without explaining how to recieve that information. This is like presenting a well researched essay appearing on the Herald's commentary page as literal fact, and then neglecting to present an opposing view.

"An Inconvenient Truth" is a political motivated documentary with a heavy bias. I certainly would not want my kids viewing that without the ability to interpret the information critically.