Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
why is it that people who claim the left is "obviously wrong" on anthropomorphic global warming seem to mostly be just repeating logical fallacies over and over?

Look, only 97% of studies agree that anthropomorphic global warming is a thing. I assume some of those other 3% claim that global warming isn't a thing at all. If these studies are so right, why won't you just cite them and be done with it?

Anyway, after arguing back and forth 6 times on Facebook, I just started quoting the Logical Fallacy Referee. http://imgur.com/a/QDbyt#0

So far, I'm on 4/32 in one Facebook thread! And I've learned about a funny name for a logical fallacy:

- Appeal to the Stone
- Ad hominem attack
- Argument from silence
- Not really a logical fallacy, but Echo Chamber effect

I also pulled out the Historical Fallacy card, though it's only tangentially related; a Reptition Fallacy is really close to happening; I think it would be fair to call an Illegal Proof Reversal if I really wanted to; A No True Scotsman foul is almost certainly in play; and the whole conversation is basically an illegal use of Ergo Decedo.

So really, we're at 9/32, and they just keep racking them up.

Why? Just find the study that supports your point and link it! I'd do it *for you* if I could freakin' find the thing! This is the banner you are waving. This is the flag you are flying. If you're going to do it, do it with data! There's enough out there to support any position, just find it and use it!

  • 1
I find that arguing about global warming is akin to the gun control or abortion debate as seen in the US - no one is going to budge an inch and truth and reasoning soon give way to name calling, not that anyone believes a study supporting the other side in the first place.

I just say that whether you believe it or not, isn't it good that it's providing an incentive for humans to come up with renewable energy and to be more efficient about how they use it. That works out at lower energy costs all round. You can win over quite a few people by appealing to their wallets.

Arguments may convince lurkers watching. I have a friend who changed his mind about gun control from watching arguments on Usenet. I think I know the argument Chris is talking about, and while the instigator may not change his mind, others may find the links provided useful.

In this case, things started from name calling, and I was trying to figure out how to involve some science in the discussion. The answer turned out to be "You can't, not this time."

  • 1