Re:Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted globa...
by yesenadam on Wednesday December 04, 2019 @08:10PM
(#21709031)
> I'm going to guess you're on the capitalism is the cause, true believer, scientism crowd..
> Of course, don't let skepticism stand in the way of your belief system, but i highly suspect that'll be a problem for you.
Interesting article, thanks. Unfortunately your first and last lines are unkind, snarky name-calling, to choose a few of the ways they seem to break the HN guidelines. And "I'm going to guess you're on the X, Y, Z crowd.." seems close to Schopenhauer's Stratagem 32:
If you are confronted with an assertion, there is a short way of getting rid of it, or, at any rate, of throwing suspicion on it, by putting it into some odious category; even though the connection is only apparent, or else of a loose character. You can say, for instance, "That is Manichaeism" or "It is Arianism," or "Pelagianism," or "Idealism," or "Spinozism," or "Pantheism," or "Brownianism," or "Naturalism," or "Atheism," or "Rationalism," "Spiritualism," "Mysticism," and so on. In making an objection of this kind, you take it for granted (1) that the assertion in question is identical with, or is at least contained in, the category cited - that is to say, you cry out, "Oh, I have heard that before"; and (2) that the system referred to has been entirely refuted, and does not contain a word of truth.
> Of course, don't let skepticism stand in the way of your belief system, but i highly suspect that'll be a problem for you.
Interesting article, thanks. Unfortunately your first and last lines are unkind, snarky name-calling, to choose a few of the ways they seem to break the HN guidelines. And "I'm going to guess you're on the X, Y, Z crowd.." seems close to Schopenhauer's Stratagem 32:
If you are confronted with an assertion, there is a short way of getting rid of it, or, at any rate, of throwing suspicion on it, by putting it into some odious category; even though the connection is only apparent, or else of a loose character. You can say, for instance, "That is Manichaeism" or "It is Arianism," or "Pelagianism," or "Idealism," or "Spinozism," or "Pantheism," or "Brownianism," or "Naturalism," or "Atheism," or "Rationalism," "Spiritualism," "Mysticism," and so on. In making an objection of this kind, you take it for granted (1) that the assertion in question is identical with, or is at least contained in, the category cited - that is to say, you cry out, "Oh, I have heard that before"; and (2) that the system referred to has been entirely refuted, and does not contain a word of truth.
http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist32.htm