Sunday, October 2, 2016

FEATURE ARTICLES. CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING- FIGHTING THE WRONG BATTLES. PT 4.

Nevada, Mountains, Sierra, Nature, Usa, California
Now that we have Set Standards for how EVIDENCE WILL BE ACCUMULATED AND EVALUATED, EVERYTHING IS READY FOR A REASONABLE AND VALID DEBATE, WITH THE RULES OF LOGIC AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD SHOWING THE WAY TO JUDGMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS THAT MUST BE ACCEPTED BY ALL, RIGHT?


Unfortunately, all to often, the Arguments of One, or even both sides of an Issue, are just there to DISGUISE THE TRUE PURPOSE FOR DEFENDING A CERTAIN CONCLUSION OR JUDGMENT.

If the Motives of One Side IS COMPLETELY SELF-SERVING, WITH A PRIORITY TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO, THE DESIRE TO CREATE CONFUSION, HOSTILITY, PREJUDICE etc, WILL WORK TO CHANGE THE DEBATE FROM A SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION OF A SPECIFIC PHENOMENA, TO AREAS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER.

A Few Things to Remember:

-  BEING ELECTED, APPOINTED, OR IN ANY WAY SELECTED TO HOLD A PUBLIC OFFICE, DOES NOT GUARANTEE EXPERTISE IN ANY SUBJECT OR DISCIPLINE.

-  IN MY EXPERIENCE, THE VAST MAJORITY OF  PhDs, MDs, JDs, AND OTHER RECOGNIZED AUTHORITIES ARE HONEST AND TRUSTWORTHY, AND WILL GIVE AN UNBIASED AND WELL REASONED OPINION ON A SUBJECT RELATED TO THEIR FIELD. HOWEVER, THERE ARE A FEW WHO IGNORE HONOR AND TRUST TO FURTHER THEIR OWN INTERESTS, OR WHO FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE FAULTS IN THE ARGUMENTS THEY HAVE PUT FORTH, DUE TO HUBRIS AND AN UNWILLINGNESS TO EVALUATE THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS WITH THE SAME DEDICATION THAT THEY WOULD USE TO JUDGE OTHERS.

-  LOGIC AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DO NO CHANGE ACCORDING TO EDUCATION, ABILITY, OR PREVIOUS ACHIEVEMENTS. THE DEFINITION OF AN INVALID OR IRRATIONAL ARGUMENT IS THE SAME FOR EVERYONE.

-  BEING AN ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERT IN ONE FIELD, DOES NOT MAKE SOMEONE AN EXPERT IN ALL SUBJECTS FOR WHICH THEY GIVE AN OPINION.

WHAT CAN WE DO?  LOOK FOR PART 5.

Date-  12/1/2015.