What Stance Is More Anti Science?

As I said in another post, proponents of manmade climate change theory should have undisputable data before they should be allowed to craft policy.

The conversion of fuel to energy dictates the totality of life on this planet.


The biggest differences between the theories is that gravity can be consistently measured (pulling objects at 9.81 m/s/s).

Also the theory of gravity has a rock-solid standard of falsifiability.

That is the main standard that proponents of manmade climate change theory lack. A standard of falsifiability is the fundamental requirement to call anything "science".

You're missing the point I was making. Just because we might not have the right answers (we at the very least don't have the exact answer) doesn't mean that the issue isn't an objective one. Mathematical problems are a simple way of showing that something is objective, regardless of whether a person solves it correctly or not. A subjective issue regarding global warming would be a question like "is global warming bad?".

As for gravity, you're talking about the law of gravity when you talk about measuring it. We know what happens due to gravity. What we're unsure of is why it's happening. We've had several theories of gravity as they've had to be replaced since we've established that they failed to describe certain things. Gravitation is also a lot more complex than just noticing what happens when you drop something on Earth, so a problem with establishing a theory is that there are aspects we have no way of testing.

But all of this is pretty much a side track so we can probably move on to the topic again.
 
I haven't truly met many of either.

I've never met anyone (who wasn't trolling hippies) who believes climate change in its entirety is non-existent. I've encountered the widespread belief that it's an exaggerated priority with exaggerated consequences and being used to brute-force lopsided legislature, and these people are clumped in with the denial straw-man.

I've met very few adults who take "transgender" seriously. Many teens and college kids seem intimidated into playing along, but when cornered even they will admit "gender" is just a game of words and biological sex is quite binary. Nowadays youth is about pandering to the PC Gulag no matter how incredulous you feel inside.
 
Last edited:
That's not subjective.

A subject's experiences have nothing at all to do with the causes of global warming. It's not an issue that is touched by subjectivity in the least.
agree to disagree

if not, there'd be much more scientific consensus as to what exact effect Humans have had, and to what degree we can solve/fix it...

there isn't though, hence it's not objective.

It's their interpretation of data that doesn't paint an entire picture, that's straight up subjective my dude.

If you don't see how that is possibly subjective, then do not bother responding IMO. Why address it further?
 
Transgenderism is a real thing. If the argument was that biological sex was invalid/socially constructed, than you could argue that the idea is "anti-science".

You are correct. There are certainly people with mental illness.
 
agree to disagree

What I said is objectively true. It seems that you just think "subjective" means "something that not everyone acknowledges to be true," which is just wrong.

if not, there'd be much more scientific consensus as to what exact effect Humans have had, and to what degree we can solve/fix it...

??? There is a very, very strong scientific consensus about the facts. "What we can do to solve/fix it" is something that there is disagreement about because that is more of a political question or one that crosses disciplines and methods.

there isn't though, hence it's not objective.

Wrong. You're just confused about the meaning of the words you're using.

It's their interpretation of data that doesn't paint an entire picture, that's straight up subjective my dude.

If you don't see how that is possibly subjective, then do not bother responding IMO. Why address it further?

I'm addressing your objectively untrue statements. Climate is not influenced by your feelings and perceptions and is not subjective.

I'm unaware of widely held unscientific beliefs by people who want rights for trans people.

Yeah, what branch of science tells us that being assholes to trans people is a necessity?
 
Do we treat anorexics and bulemics the same way? rather than actually fix their delusions, we just kowtow to their altered sense of reality?

If we determine that fixing their body dysmorphia would be exponentially more damaging to them than actualizing it, then yes. Also, if there is a burgeoning medical recognition of the problem as being more than mere delusion and upholding of it does not affect me personally, what the fuck do I care? Better yet, why do you care? If someone is born with both sets of genitalia, does whichever sex and gender their parents choose become their absolute, common sense sex and gender? Will it be impossible for them to be a manly man or a womanly woman in their life? If or if not, please explain.

Can I be a dolphin if I want? How about black, even though I was born white? This is patently absurd

No disagreement here.
 
That global warming is fake is easily more anti-science.

People might argue about the cause (which is equally pointless imho) or the solution but to outright deny it is happening is insane.
 
Back
Top