You elevate incomprehension to the level of artistic performance.[end of discussion with Alexandr]
Is global warming man-made? Is it dangerous for nature or humans?
(286 posts, started )
You elevate incomprehension to the level of artistic performance.[end of discussion with Alexandr]
This is not me engaging in discussion with you, Avraham, but merely ensuring a common and mutual understanding.
You are objectively wrong in what you say about Alexandr, and you have demonstrated this repeatedly in this thread, and in another thread I read. I very strongly believe that you know you're wrong, though, and that makes you a bad faith actor.
As for your understanding of climate science, it seems quite clear to me that you don't have any. Every argument you present is at its heart either a misrepresentation of current understanding or a complete misunderstanding of current knowledge. You are what we call "unconsciously incompetent". That is to say that you know or understand so little about the subject that you genuinely don't know how foolish the representations you make about it, in fact, actually are.
I consider myself to be in part "consciously competent" WRT climate science, but in many respects about the intricacies of the statistics, "consciously incompetent". As a pragmatic fallibilist, I'm able to say this. Meanwhile, what YOU say is irrelevent to me and also irrelevent to any wider debate on the topic, either because it's fundamentally or it's trivially lacking in substance.
In that respect, yes, for you it's the end of debate because you're far beyond the limit of your understanding, and because you've demonstrated an inability to mature or further your knowledge in the discussion - something MOST other participants HAVE been able to do.
You are fascinatingly pretentious, and your attempts at recovery are pathetic. Anyone who has followed this thread realizes this.
I have not put forward any scientific proposition here. You haven't done more.
I referred you to the scientific arguments of the IPCC which you claim are invalid without being able to demonstrate why ?
So the real situation is this: You and Alexandr claim to have a scientific truth superior to the current scientific consensus on global warming in the name of scientific doubt and nothing else. And that should matter more than the work and conclusions of experts.
While neither you nor Alexandr have any kind of scientific training and you seem (for Alexandr it is sure) to discover the scientific studies that are presented to you here.
And your conclusion is that I am incompetent!SamH, you know what ? You are absolutely fantastic !
I even put it at the very beginning, to improve the chance of you paying attention.
Thanks. But I know how to read. I clarified things by "ensuring common and mutual understanding", second part of your sentence.
Just to put some gasoline on the fire;
Has it ever been processed that the moon is moving slightly further away from the earth every year, and this is causing a less spherical shape of the waters(Which I guess also makes the time in sun longer??). Which in return has less circulation and creates more heat from the outcome?
You're welcome for the very (un)scientific comment from a guy who is contributing greatly to the collapse of the climate.
Has it ever been processed that the moon is moving slightly further away from the earth every year, and this is causing a less spherical shape of the waters(Which I guess also makes the time in sun longer??). Which in return has less circulation and creates more heat from the outcome?
You're welcome for the very (un)scientific comment from a guy who is contributing greatly to the collapse of the climate.
I don't understand what you're talking about, if you're talking about tidal forces from the moon, then the fact that the moon is gradually moving away from the earth just reduces those forces.
Yes, Tidal forces do not only operate in ocean waters. Tidal waves are also formed in the Earth's crust and mantle. But due to the intractability of the Earth's crust, the amplitude of these "solid" waves is much lower than the amplitude of ocean tidal waves, and their length, on the contrary, is many thousands of kilometres. So the "solid" tidal waves run in the Earth's crust with almost no resistance, and the associated braking moment of forces (and the resulting deceleration of the Earth and acceleration of the Moon) is much smaller.
So I don't see how moving the moon away from the earth can generate more heat, rather the opposite. But it's a very long process. And which is unlikely to be synchronised with existing global warming.
In fact, the Earth is not a perfect sphere. Because of diurnal rotation it is flattened at the poles; the heights of the continents are different, the shape of the surface is distorted by tidal deformations.
So if there were no tides now, the shape of the Earth is still not perfectly spherical. If the Earth were entirely covered by an ocean and not subject to the tidal effects of other celestial bodies and other such disturbances, it would have the shape of a geoid. In reality, the Earth's surface can vary considerably from geoid in different places. To better approximate the surface, the concept of a reference ellipsoid is introduced, which coincides well with the geoid only at some part of the surface. Geometric parameters of reference ellipsoids differ from those of the average terrestrial ellipsoid, which describes the Earth's surface as a whole.
The phenomenon you are talking about is well known to scientists and studied precisely since the end of the sixties (since the first mission of Appolo 11). You will very easily find a considerable amount of scientific information on this subject.
To make it short and answer your question, in addition to what Aleksandr said. This phenomenon is caused by Earth's tides which exert a gravitational force on the Moon and accelerate its movement, thus expelling it from the Earth's sphere of influence. The exchange of energy between the Earth and the moon also slows down the Earth's rotation speed.
If the modifed distance from the Earth and the Moon is real and measurable, and this has modified the Earth's climate and will continue to do so, this distance has no effect on current global warming. Because this distance of 3.78 cm per year is significant on a completely different time scale (like Aleksandr said you). Its temporal incidence is, for example, less than 2 milliseconds per century...
It seems you are mixing 2 known phenomena. The distance between the moon and the earth that I have just talked about (and which has real effects on the climate measurable on a geological level) and the recent work of meteorologist Ed Hawkins on the 18-year lunar cycles, which have a real influence, but weak on warming and will contribute to an increase in temperatures around 2O30. Currently, the influence of this cycle leads to a cooling of 0.04°C.
The mechanism is as follows: tidal intensity modifies the mixing between warmer waters at the ocean surface and colder deep waters. This changes the rate at which the oceans can absorb heat. The effect is negligible on current warming.
The particularity and danger of current global warming, to which you contribute greatly
, is that it is the fastest ever recorded on earth. It is for this reason that natural adaptation to the sudden changes that await us cannot take place without causing serious problems.Speak for yourself. If you are done with the dialogue then don't mention and dont lie about me.
Why are you always so fond of substituting what others tell you? Why not just respond to actual theses or questions, and making up strawmans instead?
I never said what I'm saying "scientific truth" Whatever that means.
On AGW, I was just saying that it's the most likely, but we don't have definitive proof of AGW.
On the dangers of GW in the future. All I said was that I don't have enough data to accurately predict the future. But you know exactly what the future holds. And that's what concerns me. And that's it. Stop lying about what I'm saying.
All you're offering at best (when you're not lying, or making logical fallacies which happens quite a lot in this thread apparently by excellent philosophical education) is an attempt to make an inductive argument. All I'm saying is that an inductive argument is not necessarily true. Only a deductive argument is have truth value.
The above led me to the logical conclusion that you did not have the sources for the studies whose validity you were questioning. You were even unable to access on your own the complete study with the references. I provided it to you.
Most of your statements here demonstrate that your knowledge of the subject is extremely incomplete. Stop constantly reinventing yourself, you're not fooling anyone.
I assure you that there is no logical error in thinking that what is scientifically agreed by consensus upon is unfortunately the most probable. This is my position, even if I don't like the prognosis. The only personal opinion I have put forward here is that I doubt that we will succeed in taking collective action on global warming.
Unlike others here, I do not venture into anticipations and personal ramblings. At no point in this thread have I reported anything other than the words of the scientists themselves, on climate issues, in respect of the principles of responsibility and humility. You should try. You will see that it is relaxing to accept that there may be skills and intelligence superior to yours. If you lack data to understand what climate future (and its consequences) we are heading towards, others have it for you. They understood and analysed them.
I would also like to bring to your attention a distinction in meaning that perhaps does not exist in Russian? A language in which, it seems, the words have no common meaning. In the languages I use, a "dialogue" is not an "interrogation". Your interlocutors are not there to respond to all your meaningless injunctions.
Your kindergarten ramblings about inductive and deductive arguments are irrelevant to this debate. I am not presenting any personal argument here. I give you access to current scientific knowledge. The fact that this scientific data does not support your personal representations does not matter to me in any way. There is absolutely nothing "inductive" about saying that you, like SamH, are more likely to be wrong than the scientific community as a whole, whatever you say about the climate.
I'm not saying anything that isn't either common knowledge in the scientific community or isn't absolutely mainstream climate science. What I'm NOT doing is parroting the politically motivated activists' talking points, narratives and spin.
The vast majority of the field of climate science is interested only in advancing their knowledge and making discoveries. They are NOT trying to promote themselves for glory by becoming lead authors on the IPCC working groups, or promoting or advocating their world view, or saying the right things in order to get grant approvals from a politicised and corrupted funding authority or to make front page "only 6 months to save the world" headlines.
On the other hand, there is an element that DOES all those things, and because you know so little on the subject you only know how to find that stuff to repeat here. And you have no idea HOW MUCH you DON'T know.
The vast majority of the field of climate science is interested only in advancing their knowledge and making discoveries. They are NOT trying to promote themselves for glory by becoming lead authors on the IPCC working groups, or promoting or advocating their world view, or saying the right things in order to get grant approvals from a politicised and corrupted funding authority or to make front page "only 6 months to save the world" headlines.
On the other hand, there is an element that DOES all those things, and because you know so little on the subject you only know how to find that stuff to repeat here. And you have no idea HOW MUCH you DON'T know.
So you keep the dialogue going. Okay. But why if you're not answering to my thesis? To make even more substitutes for my theses with your own and demolish them. Convenient.
As usual you don't respond to anything I've said. But unlike you, I don't do that.
And I have a superpower that you don't have. I can respond to an opponent's thesis.
Can you give the logical formula for this statement? Either you don't understand anything about logic, which means you're talking bullshit (as you showed earlier).
And I question any sources, especially those that are not subject to any verification and falsification. But as my quote says, this source contains conclusions that have varying degrees of confidence. (strong or weak) any probabilistic conclusion is an inductive argument.
How come I can't access it if you provided the links yourself. Let's say you don't want to understand what I'm writing to you. But do you even understand what you're writing?
I've already said that it only contains probability conclusions. Which is a reduction to induction.
You're talking about yourself. I have often noticed in the course of the dialogue that you like to project your mistakes onto others. That's exactly what's happening now.
I didn't say anything about that, it's another thesis of yours that you substitute for the logical fallacy I mentioned in your other yours theses. It is convenient to do this when you do not respond to the theses of the interlocutor, but invent something of your own.
And saying that something is the "most probable" is an inductive argument. Again...
Yes, and that's why you call a man that you know nothing about a child who needs to go back to school..It's very responsible and humble and there's nothing personal about it.
You lie and commit thesis substitutions (strawmen), appeal to authority and majority as an argument, and others such logical fallacies that I pointed out earlier.
At the same time when you were talking complete rubbish I still tried to respond to you with respect. But if you don't want to communicate with respect, why should I? But I'm still trying, though. I find it harder each time I respond to disrespect with respect.
Ohhh... This means that you don't have to answer the interlocutor's questions and theses. You can instead make up your own and answer them. I see how that works for you.
I'm sorry, but that's not how I see it. I consider it a matter of respect in a discussion to respond to questions and to specific thesis.
You yourself mention probabilistic inference and logic here. In the same comment you talk about "kindergarten ramblings about inductive and deductive arguments" You're the one talking about deduction and induction here. What is wrong with you? Or do you not understand at all what you are talking about?
Once again, you are once again dissing your own knowledge of philosophy.
Inductive argument is an assertion that uses assumptions or observations to make a broader generalization. Inductive arguments, by their nature, possess some degree of uncertainty which leads to probabilistic conclusions. They are used to show the likelihood that a conclusion drawn from known premises is true.
Deductive argument establishes a conclusion to be true by stating two or more true premises that lead to the conclusion being true i.e. it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Premises are offered to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion.
In other words reasoning by induction are assessed as strong or weak - as more or less probable.
And deduction as valid or invalid - as in formal logic.
That is you yourself constantly talk about logic, but you never make any logical deductions yourself and only make attempts at inductive arguments. Which is what I keep pointing out. Which makes it clear you don't know what you're talking about. Over and over again. All questions except the first about the logical formula are rhetorical. I still give you a chance to prove that you understand what you are talking about and I will try not to make any unambiguous conclusions in advance. But answering questions and my theses is what is hard to expect from you.
As usual you don't respond to anything I've said. But unlike you, I don't do that.
And I have a superpower that you don't have. I can respond to an opponent's thesis.
Can you give the logical formula for this statement? Either you don't understand anything about logic, which means you're talking bullshit (as you showed earlier).
And I question any sources, especially those that are not subject to any verification and falsification. But as my quote says, this source contains conclusions that have varying degrees of confidence. (strong or weak) any probabilistic conclusion is an inductive argument.
How come I can't access it if you provided the links yourself. Let's say you don't want to understand what I'm writing to you. But do you even understand what you're writing?
I've already said that it only contains probability conclusions. Which is a reduction to induction.
You're talking about yourself. I have often noticed in the course of the dialogue that you like to project your mistakes onto others. That's exactly what's happening now.
I didn't say anything about that, it's another thesis of yours that you substitute for the logical fallacy I mentioned in your other yours theses. It is convenient to do this when you do not respond to the theses of the interlocutor, but invent something of your own.
And saying that something is the "most probable" is an inductive argument. Again...
Yes, and that's why you call a man that you know nothing about a child who needs to go back to school..It's very responsible and humble and there's nothing personal about it.
You lie and commit thesis substitutions (strawmen), appeal to authority and majority as an argument, and others such logical fallacies that I pointed out earlier.
At the same time when you were talking complete rubbish I still tried to respond to you with respect. But if you don't want to communicate with respect, why should I? But I'm still trying, though. I find it harder each time I respond to disrespect with respect.
Ohhh... This means that you don't have to answer the interlocutor's questions and theses. You can instead make up your own and answer them. I see how that works for you.
I'm sorry, but that's not how I see it. I consider it a matter of respect in a discussion to respond to questions and to specific thesis.
You yourself mention probabilistic inference and logic here. In the same comment you talk about "kindergarten ramblings about inductive and deductive arguments" You're the one talking about deduction and induction here. What is wrong with you? Or do you not understand at all what you are talking about?
Once again, you are once again dissing your own knowledge of philosophy.
Inductive argument is an assertion that uses assumptions or observations to make a broader generalization. Inductive arguments, by their nature, possess some degree of uncertainty which leads to probabilistic conclusions. They are used to show the likelihood that a conclusion drawn from known premises is true.
Deductive argument establishes a conclusion to be true by stating two or more true premises that lead to the conclusion being true i.e. it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Premises are offered to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion.
In other words reasoning by induction are assessed as strong or weak - as more or less probable.
And deduction as valid or invalid - as in formal logic.
That is you yourself constantly talk about logic, but you never make any logical deductions yourself and only make attempts at inductive arguments. Which is what I keep pointing out. Which makes it clear you don't know what you're talking about. Over and over again. All questions except the first about the logical formula are rhetorical. I still give you a chance to prove that you understand what you are talking about and I will try not to make any unambiguous conclusions in advance. But answering questions and my theses is what is hard to expect from you.
You have once again demonstrated that your position is purely ideological and that there is nothing scientific about it. But your ranting has no effect on me. Unlike you, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I also know the dissident theses. I chose my side objectively.
If I follow the logic of your argument, that your positions are debated in the scientific community, we are both just reciting a different catechism. If you don't like that of IPCC, refer to the studies commissioned by Total in the 1970s, which reached exactly the same conclusions as the IPCC reports on the causes, nature, and progress of global warming.
I set a prerequisite that you have not met.
See above.
The logic is as follows: the evidence shows that you had not consulted the IPCC reports before I provided you with links to these reports, as evidenced by our exchanges. Nothing else.
Who told you otherwise?
I was referring here to the fact that you could not find the references of the studies cited in the IPCC report, because you did not consult the full report. So I had to, again, provide you with a link to this full report.
I am only retracing the chronology of the facts. Which attest that your questions (your “theses”) predate your knowledge of the IPCC reports. I specify this because it could partly explain their lack of foundations. I'm just trying to put things into perspective here.
Sorry, I'm past the age of school yard sandbox rhetoric.
You were asking yourself very basic questions about Earth's climate evolution (like the one below) which demonstrate that your climate knowledge is full of holes. Again, I gave you a link to the information you were missing. You were still going off on ramblings unrelated to the subject.
I tried to talk with you. But I don't have time to play. I happily exchange with those for whom words and concepts have meaning. Recognizing the validity of science and the elements on which scientists agree, has (for example) absolutely nothing to do with rhetoric or sophism. It’s a simple rational positioning.
I have nothing personal against you. Besides, I patiently respond to almost all your nonsense. Even if you say too much. Dissect all would be a full-time job. I have other things to do.
Your thinking is confused. You mix everything up. It's exhausting and discouraging to have to fight to make you hear so primary things.
You are neither in the debate nor in the quest for understanding. You don't even try to understand your interlocutors. Not only that, but you just want to be right, and you use every trick possible to convince yourself of that. I'm sorry, these tricks don't work on me.
You are systematically involved in controversy, provocation, and the distortion of realities, even in the most serious and reprehensible personal attacks. I refuse to give you the pleasure of falling into this trap, but you know exactly what I'm talking about. You obviously have no concept of what respect for people is. But as you can see, once again, I answer you. You will have to make an effort if you don't want it to be the last time.
This means, as I have already explained to you several times, that your thesis is not admissible as it stands. Because it has absolutely no semantic significance, to the extent that it is devoid of any societal perspective.
Explanatory contextual note:
Blind spots of your introductory hypothesis (abridged):
1- How will humanity survive chain cataclysms, particularly nuclear ones, pollution and social disorders resulting from the loss of coasts and the melting of permafrost, glaciers and poles, etc.? And for how long ?
Subsidiary questions; What macro-sociological impacts will the sixth mass extinction, systemic economic collapses have? The same goes for the scarcity of drinking water and essential foodstuffs, etc. and resulting turf wars?
Even if your pretty little green greenhouse had a chance of existing climatically. For how long would it exist? And for what humanity? Those are the real questions.
You place your hypothesis as a competitor to scientific predictions presented as catastrophic (by the sensationalist media, of which SamH seems to be fond of). However, the purpose of these scientific forecasts is to define prevention policies and means of action. Humans are always at the centre of climate issues.
Your greenhouse hypothesis makes no sense because it is devoid of any contextual insight. The statement “People will be able to settle in areas further from the coast. » does not constitute an admissible proposal, because it is totally disconnected from the health and societal realities which will result from global warming as measured. The disappearance of the coasts, for example, will not occur gradually and predictably depending on the average level of rising water levels. The ratings will disappear suddenly, with a combination of sudden weather phenomena, caused and/or amplified by global warming. The rise in ocean temperature is already disrupting ecosystems and killing organisms, with countless irreversible consequences. Etc. Etc. Etc. The list of aberrations of your postulate is endless.
Your hypotheses escape rationality in that they tend to refute an objective reality: the catastrophe of global warming is already a reality for tens of millions of people in the world, for the fauna and for the flora.
In their very formulations, what you call your hypotheses, are only a question mark placed behind tautologies which are ignored itself, such as:
Does water get wet? Is the fire burning? Is death mortal?
I tried to tell you in a nicer way. You didn't understand it. So you force me to be clearer. If I had to evaluate your hypotheses, I would use a negative rating system, as their level of absurdity is beyond comprehension.
When I read from your pen and that of SamH that there is no "significant increase in sea levels", while entire populations are already seeing their habitat disappear, that in my region alone 2 million people will have to -be displaced and that it is the first economic lung of the country which will soon be underwater. I seriously wonder what's going on in your head?
When I read in your introduction to this topic:
I note with disappointment that you know nothing about how the IPCC modelling tools work.
The proof of the anthropogenic origin of global warming is mathematically demonstrated: if we remove the CO2 of human origin, the models no longer establish warming CQFD. The gradual increase in temperatures linked to CO2 emissions has also been mathematically demonstrated since the 1970s, notably by a company like Total which shares few interests with IPCC scientists. As early as 1977, ExxonMobil had precisely modeled the gradual impact of fossil fuel combustion on global warming. The veracity of these calculations has been verified because these 1977 calculations corroborate current measurements.
The consequences of the melting of the poles and glaciers are established, particularly in their impact on global sea levels and the proportion of fresh water in the functioning of the dominant currents.etc. etc.
Global warming, if it increases in the calculated proportions, will cause immeasurable planetary disorders. Your thesis of the pretty little green greenhouse and the conspiratorial rantings of SamH, constitute only Idiosyncratic blisters stuck to the surface of reality, like boogers under a dunce's school desk. In more consensual terms: this is childishness.
It's amazing to produce so much gibberish and copy/paste to say nothing. I note that for once, you use definitions... this is already, in itself, a mark of progress.Once again you are mixing everything up and understanding nothing. When I say "There is absolutely nothing 'inductive' about saying that you, like SamH, are more likely to be wrong than the scientific community", I am trying to make you understand in a cordial way, but apparently too subtle, that the facts don't need demonstrated: they are observed.
The fact that you and SamH are not credible on the climate issue does not require any sort of argumentative demonstration. This is what we call obvious in everyday language.
The logic, the only one that is valid here, is that the scientific community alerts us to global warming based on a meta-analysis of all current scientific data. And may your prevarications and personal fantasies weigh nothing compared to the scientific reality of global warming. Unless you give yourself the means of scientific demonstration in order to invalidate the conclusions of the IPCC.
However, neither you nor SamH have formulated anything scientific here. Nor anything likely to cast doubt on the consensus thesis. Nor even to suggest that you understand anything about current climate issues and their consequences for nature and for man.
This is insane levels of projection.
If there's one thing I think we've all learned from your participation in this thread, it's that you don't follow logic in any argument. You give a good example of how you don't understand and have no capacity for this discussion. If you knew anything you'd know that the "Big Oil" studies assumed a simple system and a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature. The climate is not a simple system, it's a complex coupled system, and the effect of CO2 on temperature is not linear, it's logarithmic. The 50 year old studies made the "all other things being equal" assumption that we obviously know is incorrect.
As for the IPCC, you seem to be labouring under the misunderstanding that this is a scientific body rather than a political one. The scientists involved in the IPCC are invited by politicians, not scientists, to participate. The SPM at the conclusion of the IPCC Assessment Report is put together by political government representatives and their invited NGOs, who together negotiate the document to the exclusion of scientists. This is how the system is designed to work, per the doctrine of the UNFCCC.
But if you knew anything about this subject, you'd already know these things and wouldn't need me to correct you or explain things to you.
I pointed out at the end of my comment that all my questions were rhetorical except one. That is, I only asked you to answer one question and I again got a huge longread of thesis substitutions and all the other logical fallacies I listed earlier. I don't know why you would waste so much time if you could just answer one question. But this time you were quoting to what you were answering. Even though there were no substantive answers there, it already shows that you are capable of responding in a structured way.
Instead, you decided to make another meaningless statement while referring to logic and not understanding the essence of my question. (or deliberately not answering) There is no logical formalisation according to formal semantics in your quote. And there's not even a logial inference there.
Again you don't understand what logic is. And you're making up your own. So you're just arbitrarily using words.
Logic is a mathematical discipline. A statement in mathematical logic is a sentence expressing a judgement. If the statement is true, it is said to be true if the judgement that constitutes the content (meaning) of a certain statement.Similarly, a statement that is an expression of a false judgement is called false. The truth and falsity are called the logical, or truth values of statements. A statement must be a narrative sentence, and is contrasted with imperative, question, and any other sentence whose truth or falsity cannot be evaluated.
In terms of the depth of analysis of statements, a distinction is made between the logic of statements, or propositional logic, and First-order logic, which includes quantifier theories. Unlike the logic of predicates, the logic of statements studies types of reasoning that do not depend on the internal structure of simple sentences. First-order predicate logic is extended by higher-order logics. I would credit your answer if you answered within the framework of any of these logics. But instead you just don't understand what you are talking about and you just don't understand the meaning of the words you use as usual.
I would have counted your answer as correct if you had simply reduced logic to the generally recognisable Aristotelian laws of logic, even if it was a very outdated and primitive understanding of logic. But you didn't even do that. You apparently don't even know about the 4 laws of logic, since you have constantly violated them. In particular, the law of identity and the law of sufficient reason.
You have substituted the concept as usual. This continues in the rest of your replies to me, like on this example. I think we should agree to disagree so we don't waste each other's time anymore.
Instead, you decided to make another meaningless statement while referring to logic and not understanding the essence of my question. (or deliberately not answering) There is no logical formalisation according to formal semantics in your quote. And there's not even a logial inference there.
Again you don't understand what logic is. And you're making up your own. So you're just arbitrarily using words.
Logic is a mathematical discipline. A statement in mathematical logic is a sentence expressing a judgement. If the statement is true, it is said to be true if the judgement that constitutes the content (meaning) of a certain statement.Similarly, a statement that is an expression of a false judgement is called false. The truth and falsity are called the logical, or truth values of statements. A statement must be a narrative sentence, and is contrasted with imperative, question, and any other sentence whose truth or falsity cannot be evaluated.
In terms of the depth of analysis of statements, a distinction is made between the logic of statements, or propositional logic, and First-order logic, which includes quantifier theories. Unlike the logic of predicates, the logic of statements studies types of reasoning that do not depend on the internal structure of simple sentences. First-order predicate logic is extended by higher-order logics. I would credit your answer if you answered within the framework of any of these logics. But instead you just don't understand what you are talking about and you just don't understand the meaning of the words you use as usual.
I would have counted your answer as correct if you had simply reduced logic to the generally recognisable Aristotelian laws of logic, even if it was a very outdated and primitive understanding of logic. But you didn't even do that. You apparently don't even know about the 4 laws of logic, since you have constantly violated them. In particular, the law of identity and the law of sufficient reason.
You have substituted the concept as usual. This continues in the rest of your replies to me, like on this example. I think we should agree to disagree so we don't waste each other's time anymore.
No, you don't. That's about as direct and as obvious a lie as you could possibly tell. It's absolutely inconceivable that you could be anything more than trolling. What an unbelievable waste of time you've been.
You guys have so much free time.
Ha! Well, I decided to take on a photography project, but then it started raining
Thank you SamH for informing me that science has progressed in fifty years. I admit that I had some concerns about this.Exxon could have done its calculations on a Chinese abacus and engraved its results in cuneiform writing on a clay tablet. This would not change the fact that the world oil companies had calculated, and with surprising precision, their contribution to global warming as early as 1977. An anthropogenic contribution whose real impact you still partly deny.
This is, for example, what a propensity for conspiratorial delirium is.
Do you also doubt that Youri Alekseïevitch Gagarine was the first human being to fly into space under the pretext that it was Soviet propaganda? You don't say anything substantial. You limit yourself to spreading texts without objects with the discussion to camouflage things. This won't alter the fact that your assumptions are terribly stupid. I hope you don't waste time reading all this.This topic is in itself an ecocide.
I hadn't seen that. You are definitely surpassing yourself today. Be careful of overwork.I mentioned one of these theses in one of my previous posts. You didn't even notice it. This shows what a competent and informed scientist you are.
Well, I skim through it. It is always the same story between you 3 guys
Trying to outsmart each other with fancy philosophical ideas, that does not solve anything, global warming is still happening, what ever we say In fact, I don't see where we approached the philosophical question? Some people seem to believe it, and it seems to please them. It is true that they have nothing to say apart from methodological nonsense devoid of real interest in this debate. I hope at least that with the general knowledge elements posted here and some basic deconstructions, no one here will no longer say that global warming is not anthropogenic. Or that it is not dangerous for nature or for humans.
As for solutions... I think we need to prepare ourselves to face the reality, with little possibility of really softening the blow.
Unless you have good news on that front?
Is global warming man-made? Is it dangerous for nature or humans?
(286 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG