"Nye is about as much a scientist as I am", says Sarah Palin

[Elim Garak]

And now you're playing semantic word games.

What? Logic is semantic word game now? Stop using fallacies and I won't cite any logic to you.

Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but if you want me to believe you have a wish-granting unicorn, I'm gonna require that you show me some evidence first.

I'd only be making the "evidence of absence" argument if I said such a creature couldn't exist. I'm not. I'm just saying I won't believe you without evidence that it does. My mind is open to that possibility, if you have actual evidence. Minus any evidence? I'm going to assume it isn't true for the same reason I assume that Middle Earth isn't a real place and Gollum isn't hiding behind me.

I don't care if you believe me or not. I'm not even claiming anything for you to believe, I'm saying that we don't know everything. If you don't believe that fact - it's your problem.
My only issue is how eager you are to dismiss unknowns. Very unscientific.

[Torgent]

I would say to understand the complex mechanics of climate/weather, you would need something like physics, hydrodynamics or glaciology. It's not an easy field- requires very specialized knowledge you wouldn't find in an engineering program.

I accept your apology.

Umm...You do realize that a fairly large chunk of engineering is based in Physics, right? Like 75% is physics. Hydrodynamics and chemistry are also present in very real amounts.

- - - Updated - - -

What? Logic is semantic word game now? Stop using fallacies and I won't cite any logic to you.


I don't care if you believe me or not. I'm not even claiming anything for you to believe, I'm saying that we don't know everything. If you don't believe that fact - it's your problem.
My only issue is how eager you are to dismiss unknowns. Very unscientific.

You're embarrassing yourself. Stop. The scientific way isn't to say "Well we have all of this evidence, but there's still a chance of X, so let's just assume X is equally as plausible despite no evidence being provided." Endus is saying that until you provide evidence of your claims, the scientific way would be to dismiss.

[Endus]

You're embarrassing yourself. Stop. The scientific way isn't to say "Well we have all of this evidence, but there's still a chance of X, so let's just assume X is equally as plausible despite no evidence being provided. Endus is saying that until you provide evidence of your claims, the scientific way would be to dismiss.

Which, to re-emphasize, is not saying "you cannot be right in that", it's saying "unless you have evidence, I have no reason to believe you." This is not a claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, it's a refusal to accept a hypothesis before it has been tested. Which is absolutely how science is done, at a fundamental level.

[Hammerfest]

You are so terribly confused on what knowledge is.

That's funny because I was thinking the exact same thing about you.

[Spectral]

Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but if you want me to believe you have a wish-granting unicorn, I'm gonna require that you show me some evidence first.

I think I'm going to put "Absence of evidence is not be evidence of absence" quip right alongside "correlation doesn't imply causation" as overly glib, useless statements that people repeat as though they constitute real arguments. Absence of evidence really is evidence of absence when there's a plausible reason to believe that evidence should exist in the first place. In the case of some hypothetical sun activity spike having started, we really would expect there to be some straightforward way to observe that - it's not as though it would be impossible to detect in principle and a number of the plausible ways solar activity could be relevant are already measured. So, yeah, an absence of evidence for solar activity causing Earth to warm emphatically is evidence for the absence of this occurring.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I don't think it matters what the debate it about..If Endus is involved there will be people lining up on the other just to tell him he's wrong.

He could say something like "The Earth is round and revolves around the Sun" and these people would shout "No, It is flat and the sun revolves around it"

[Deleted]

This whole thread is so full of negative people. It should come with some sort of warning.

[Elim Garak]

You're embarrassing yourself. Stop. The scientific way isn't to say "Well we have all of this evidence, but there's still a chance of X, so let's just assume X is equally as plausible despite no evidence being provided." Endus is saying that until you provide evidence of your claims, the scientific way would be to dismiss.

I've made no claims. Reading is hard I guess.

[Torgent]

That's funny because I was thinking the exact same thing about you.

Lol, nice jab without reasoning. I went on to explain. Explain to me where my thinking is wrong in what I said. I'll be waiting, babe.

[Hammerfest]

Lol, nice jab without reasoning. I went on to explain. Explain to me where my thinking is wrong in what I said. I'll be waiting, babe.

If I have to explain it, you won't understand it.

[Torgent]

If I have to explain it, you won't understand it.

AKA: I have nothing and I'm trolling. Thanks for admitting it.

[Venaliter]

Umm...You do realize that a fairly large chunk of engineering is based in Physics, right? Like 75% is physics. Hydrodynamics and chemistry are also present in very real amounts.

The term "specialized" seems to have escaped you.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/specialised

[Torgent]

The term "specialized" seems to have escaped you.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/specialised

Everything you named in your post as part of this specialized knowledge would be present in significant portions in a mechanical engineering degree.

[Xeones]

If I have to explain it, you won't understand it.

That largely comes with all of your posts, but I wager it's not any fault of yours is it?

[Ripster42]

The term "specialized" seems to have escaped you.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/specialised

I hate to break your bubble, but "specialized" for scientists largely just means, "I've spent a lot more time thinking about this," rather than, "This is the only thing I know how to do." They understand the underlying processes that other scientists are working with. They can follow the arguments made across specialties largely because the first thing they do is learn how to do science. It really seems like you have no actual scientific training and shouldn't be talking about things you don't understand.

Engineering is really "the science of applying science in a practical way." They're scientists.