You should study theory of science.
You don't need scientific based evidence for doubting a statement but for proving its correctness.
Drought period in California finshed by Climate change
- Thread starter Berthold
- Start date
Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:
You don't need scientific based evidence for doubting a statement but for proving its correctness.
ehanes7612
Well-Known Member
That's not true. Any skepticism that is expressed for a theory ( meaning one that has ample evidence to call it a scientific theory) requires scientific evidence to put it into question as a non viable theory (this is the falsifiability criterion of modern science) or at least a plausible counter hypothesis that itself is testable. Half the questions that students are asked in any science class are those framed "what evidence do we have for so and so NOT to be a viable theory or a viable property of a system , etc etc" . There is plenty of evidence to make human induced climate change a viable theory but to create the falsifiability criterion for human induced climate change you must present a viable argument based on evidence. Many do, although the mounting evidence in support of human induced climate change is outweighing any theories that are popping up. All you have ever presented in your skepticism are logical statements based in 'common sense' or any other false logic, or the one concrete remark (refuting temperatures) based on a 5th grader's understanding of statistics (which is quite common in any form of denial, especially climate change denial). You especially like to put forth distracting statements like those related to AL Gore and other climate change theory advocates..as if their participation automatically negates the theory. That does not fit the falsifiability criterion. That is plain and simple political wrangling no different than people using words like "liberal" or "conservative" as a pejorative to dismiss the claims of people who actually put forth viable information. So, when Emydura asks you this question, he is completely correct in doing so.
Last edited:
No, each statement must have a scientific based evidence or must be proved by long life experience like 2. law of thermodynamics.
Both is missing in the actual discussion of the amount of men made climate change.
The statement that there is a God can not be refuted. But that doesn't confirms it correctness.
Both is missing in the actual discussion of the amount of men made climate change.
The statement that there is a God can not be refuted. But that doesn't confirms it correctness.
ehanes7612
Well-Known Member
which is a a complete lie, any simple search on the internet reveals your fabrication...and now, once again, you are equivocating to avoid Emydura's challenge
Last edited:
Sorry, I can't help You.
Maybe my english is to bad. I am certified level 4 only, which is the operational level for aviation.
You should proceed in studying physics or similar and don't spend so much time in internet.
Last edited:
Similar threads
