We cannot stipulate “facts” such as “the icecaps are melting”, “the earth is getting warmer”, “the earth is warmer than it has ever been”, or “central control increases efficiency”.

cthulhu on April 26, 2010 at 3:03 AM

Nice work, my Lovecraftian friend.

As Thomas Kuhn and many others have pointed out, facts are inseparable from theory. The theory determines what is relevant to observe. This is grade school stuff.

But the worst part is, when one is engaging in junk science, such as Marxism, psychoanalysis, certain strands of evolutionary theory, and global-warming, EVERY fact is made to confirm the theory. I would go so far as to say the hyper-confirmation of facts under the umbrella of theory is a tell-tale sign of junk science.

And I might even push things further by pointing out that the umbrella of delusion isn't even a theory: it's a political ideology. Which brings us right back to your good point.

the proceedings finally inspired Manzi to lay out the basis for a truly conservative response to global warming – one that begins with the intellectual humility that those committed to denial or alarm conspicuously lack.

Why do so many otherwise sane and intelligent people insist that both sides of a contradiction can be right? I don't have a fancy college degree like you do, and I definitely don't want to nit-pick or anything, but isn't the law of non-contradiction sort of a pretty good axiom?

The theory that there has been a qualitative shift in climate patterns, caused by man, is either true or false. It is not both true and false.

I'm sorry if my dogmatic adherence to the law of non-contradiction offends you, Highlander.

If you're saying "hey let's be civil," fine. But I detect in your comment something more sinister: an irrational appeal to a very unscientific principle that if one side says A and the other side says B then the truth MUST be somewhere in between A and B.

The history of science refutes you.