Quoting Heather Perella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > You said some posts back that you were arguing > science with science, but to argue science with > science you have to provide evidence in opposition to > global warming. So, your exactly not arguing against > the science of global warming with science. Your > arguing against the science of global warming because > of trust issues. I didn't bring up the trust issues. > You did. You even stated above that science has been > wrong in the past so science is wrong now. Therefore > you are NOT arguing against the science of global > warming with science. You are arguing against the > science of global warming with philosophy, maybe a > more correct term might be history. Your pointing out > a wrong about science in the past to support your line > of reasoning. Your not supporting your line of > reasoning with evidence (thus, following the > scientific process). Your supporting your line of > reasoning with history. Now, I do see Ian is arguing > your history that supports your line of reasoning. > So, either your history is wrong or right and if wrong > then you don't have anything else to support your line > of reasoning, unless, you provide us with evidence. > If your history is correct, then you have history on > your side to support your line of reasoning, but > remember that is still not following the scientific > process, which will only listen to arguments that have > evidence to support ones line of reasoning.
Whatever. Platt ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
