Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

Oh, so the people who are using "highly scientifically processed" statistical analyses are just "guessing."

No. Those individuals with academic degrees performing exhaustive calculations are not "guessing."

The millions of other casual fans not performing these calculations, and picking a winner, are guessing. Do you understand the difference?

If you do not know for certain what will happen, and you are making a statement about what you think might happen, it's a guess.

If calling it a "guess" is a gross oversimplification, then calling it "highly scientifically processed" or a "scientific projection" is a gross embellishment.

It's not a statement about what you "think" might happen. It's thousands of calculations and scientific models projecting an outcome. This isn't a guess. It's a highly sophisticated scientific projection.

[Tinykong]

Do you understand the difference?

Sure. But, they are still both just a guess as to what might happen. Neither is certain.

It's not a statement about what you "think" might happen. It's thousands of calculations and scientific models projecting an outcome. This isn't a guess. It's a highly sophisticated scientific projection.

So, it's a calculation of what a computer has projected might happen.

You seem to be unable to comprehend certainty.

[NineSpine]

Sure. But, they are still both just a guess as to what might happen. Neither is certain.



So, it's a calculation of what a computer has projected might happen.

You seem to be unable to comprehend certainty.

There is no such thing as "certainty" about the future. It's irrelevant.

[Tinykong]

Nobody can be certain about anything. The laws of physics could be broken in ten seconds. Certainty is a myth, and doesn't matter.

If you are so ignorant about climate research, how did you determine that the current evidence is insufficient?

You're countering by arguing that nothing is certain because: magic? lol

So said it was "insufficient," anyway? I said it's not a certainty. Just like all the other studies being posted in this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no such thing as "certainty" about the future. It's irrelevant.

Sure there is. The universe is full of constants.

[NineSpine]

You're countering by arguing that nothing is certain because: magic? lol

So said it was "insufficient," anyway? I said it's not a certainty. Just like all the other studies being posted in this thread.

There is no such thing about future certainty, so who cares? You can't be certain that anything will happen in the future. You can't be certain that the universe will exist in 5 minutes.

[Tinykong]

There is no such thing about future certainty, so who cares? You can't be certain that anything will happen in the future. You can't be certain that the universe will exist in 5 minutes.

Whee arguments from ignorance.

[NineSpine]

You're countering by arguing that nothing is certain because: magic? lol

So said it was "insufficient," anyway? I said it's not a certainty. Just like all the other studies being posted in this thread.

- - - Updated - - -



Sure there is. The universe is full of constants.

The reason we call something a "constant" is because data of the past shows it to be reliably constant. You are denying that this exact same methodology is valid for predicting the climate.

- - - Updated - - -

Whee arguments from ignorance.

An argument from ignorance is "I don't understand it, so it can't be true", which is in fact your argument.

[TZucchini]

Sure. But, they are still both just a guess as to what might happen. Neither is certain.



So, it's a calculation of what a computer has projected might happen.

You seem to be unable to comprehend certainty.

That's fine. If you want to continue believing that highly sophisticated scientific projections are just "guesses", I certainly cannot stop you.

- - - Updated - - -

The reason we call something a "constant" is because data of the past shows it to be reliably constant. You are denying that this exact same methodology is valid for predicting the climate.

That's an excellent point.

However, I disagree that "there is no such thing about future certainty."

I am 100% certain that in the future, Tiny will not admit he's wrong.

[Tinykong]

The reason we call something a "constant" is because data of the past shows it to be reliably constant. You are denying that this exact same methodology is valid for predicting the climate.

No.

I'm saying that the projection is not a certainty.

An argument from ignorance is "I don't understand it, so it can't be true", which is in fact your argument.

Kind of like arguing that nothing is certain because the laws of physics could change instantly.



- - - Updated - - -

That's an excellent point.

However, I disagree that "there is no such thing about future certainty."

I am 100% certain that in the future, Tiny will not admit he's wrong.

Anytime I find that I am wrong, I will admit it. You've been attempting to make this happen in vain for quite some time.

[NineSpine]

No.

I'm saying that the projection is not a certainty.



Kind of like arguing that nothing is certain because the laws of physics could change instantly.

The laws of physics are descriptive, not proscriptive. They are just models we use to describe phenomenon, and we trust those models because they accurately describe PAST events. You are denying the use of that exact same methodology for climate.

Give me an example of a projection that is a certainty.

[Tinykong]

The laws of physics are descriptive, not proscriptive. They are just models we use to describe phenomenon, and we trust those models because they accurately describe PAST events. You are denying the use of that exact same methodology for climate.

Wrong. I'm saying that the projection is not a certainty. This whole red herring about the laws of physics is something you injected.

Give me an example of a projection that is a certainty.

There's no such thing.

[NineSpine]

Wrong. I'm saying that the projection is not a certainty. This whole red herring about the laws of physics is something you injected.

There's no such thing.

So if projections can't be certain, then why do you keep harping on how they need to be in order to be reasonable to believe?

[TZucchini]

There's no such thing.

So everything is a guess? The laws of Physics are just a guess?

[Tinykong]

So if projections can't be certain, then why do you keep harping on how they need to be in order to be reasonable to believe?

Who said anything about "believing" the results? You can believe whatever you like.

There is a difference between "this will happen" which is a statement of certainty, and "this might happen" which is a guess. Let's not forget, this entire ridiculous derailment is because PRE911 doesn't like the word guess being applied to things that go through "highly scientific processes."

- - - Updated - - -

So everything is a guess? The laws of Physics are just a guess?

Are the laws of physics projections?

[NineSpine]

Who said anything about "believing" the results? You can believe whatever you like.

There is a difference between "this will happen" which is a statement of certainty, and "this might happen" which is a guess. Let's not forget, this entire ridiculous derailment is because PRE911 doesn't like the word guess being applied to things that go through "highly scientific processes."

- - - Updated - - -

Are the laws of physics projections?

The laws of physics are models, just like climate models are. They are projections of future behavior based on past behavior. I hate to break that news to you.

[Tinykong]

The laws of physics are models, just like climate models are. They are projections of future behavior based on past behavior. I hate to break that news to you.

Wrong.

law: a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.

Are you really going to claim that climate change projections are equivalent to the laws of physics? I mean, I know people here like to stroke themselves, but that's just fucking arrogant.

[NineSpine]

Wrong.

law: a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.

Are you really going to claim that climate change projections are equivalent to the laws of physics? I mean, I know people here like to stroke themselves, but that's just fucking arrogant.

That definition you gave matches exactly what I said. What is confusing you?

[TZucchini]

Are the laws of physics projections?

"If you do not know for certain what will happen, and you are making a statement about what you think might happen, it's a guess."

The laws of physics are not a certainty. So does that make them a guess?

[Tinykong]

That definition you gave matches exactly what I said. What is confusing you?

Except, it doesn't.

You haven't shown where the projections will always occur. If that was true, it would cease to be a "projection."

- - - Updated - - -

The laws of physics are not a certainty.

You're contradicting yourself in the same sentence. Bravo.

[NineSpine]

Except, it doesn't.

You haven't shown where the projections will always occur. If that was true, it would cease to be a "projection."

You JUST SAID that you can't ever say that anything "will" happen lol

- - - Updated - - -

You're contradicting yourself in the same sentence. Bravo.

A law of physics just means that in the past that model accurately reflects what has happened, so we expect it to continue doing the same in the future.