Quote:
|
Actually, again, no I don't IGNORE it. I look at it and decide for myself, no different than any other person who reads a warning label or looks at a risky activity and decides for themselves if the risk is worth the involvement.
|
Personal risk? I entered this thread specifically to challenge your assertion that there was no scientific consensus, or that the scientific consensus doesn’t matter because all the scientists are biased anyway, or that the scientific consensus doesn’t matter because once people thought the earth was flat, or that the scientific consensus doesn’t matter because there were ice ages in the past.
As far as personal choices go, you could be posting with your blackberry cruising through the badlands at 120 MPH with the AC on max in your 2008 Hummer, a buffalo rump taco on your lap, and, hey, it changes absolutely nothing I’ve said in this thread.
Quote:
Hey, I'm glad you are right. 
|
Take a few steps back and consider how others probably perceive your perception of “science” based on your contributions to this thread. First, you claim there is no consensus based on a phony half-plagiarized “peer reviewed” paper. If you were familiar with the science you would know that this is horseshit, regardless of whether you check the source or not. So: number one, you’re not familiar with the science. Then you claim that the consensus doesn’t matter because all the scientists are driven by the same ideology. So: number two, you dismiss the science anyway. Then you say that you are justified in dismissing the consensus because people used to think that the earth was flat. So number three: you scoff at the science.
So now you claim that you don’t ignore the science, and condescendingly roll your eyes at my inference that you do.
Sorry, but I tend to take the view that actions speak louder than words.
Quote:
|
So far you've not explained your critical thinking, and how you've arrived at your acceptance. You've just stated you accept it. Good job with the critical thinking!
|
You made the initial assertion, it’s your burden of proof to defend it.
I notice that you still haven’t provided any evidence of your claim that scientists in 20 countries for the past 20 years all happen to have the same ideological bias. Can I assume then that there isn’t a shred?
Quote:
|
As far as the continued harping on the dittohead portion, I already explained that I did not do the due diligence of looking at the author, the site of the original publishing, etc. etc. etc. I'm not sure what I was doing at that particular moment, but I again explained that I didn't have the time.
|
Whatever you were thinking at the time, you weren’t thinking very critically, now were you?
Quote:
|
Again, you'd like to continue to be condescending towards someone who is still posting and responding to you, you have that right. But what inadvertently happens is that the person tends to get tired of such discussion, and no longer posts which I believe is why the politics posting community has thinned out to where it is now.
|
What you call condescension, I call responding honestly to your repeated insistence in your recent posts that you are “thinking critically”. If you are going to make your own critical thinking skill the subject of your posts, then you are explicitly presenting that skill as fair game for debate. If you don’t want to hear anybody’s opinions about your personal clarity of thinking, then I suggest you stop inviting them.