In my continuing effort to grasp the landscape of the denialist mind, I've been grappling with various contrived arguments claiming that Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't scientific because it doesn't meet the "Falsifiability" supposition made by some philosopher.
These science skeptics never acknowledge that the process of accumulating the various lines of evidence and bits of information, (that the "AGW Theory" is built on), is chock full of validity and quality tests that do try to falsify findings and conjectures - in order to insure their soundness.
But then, it sure does seem like their base mentality is that anything demanding a reevaluation of one's perceptions is deemed a hostile threat…
so were do we go from here?
Whatever happened to every side trying to get at a true understand, {which demands an interest in learning and a willingness to allow the strength of the evidence to change one's closely held assumptions and convictions}?
Whatever happened to every side trying to get at a true understand, {which demands an interest in learning and a willingness to allow the strength of the evidence to change one's closely held assumptions and convictions}?
It's all a bit overwhelming. While I continue to wrestle with how to recount the bizarre dialogue I've had with "k" allow me to share an interesting short video. Jens Christensen examines the basic premise of the Popperian argument. Perhaps you'll find it helpful. I've included notes and time signatures.
Falsifiability. A self-refuting theory?
