A viewpoint like that is very subject to confirmation bias. Literally any crime is held up as evidence that it is correct. Look at the terms you are using “cold” “about a decade”. It isn’t a who, what, where, why, and how. It is vague.
Reverse it for a moment. Treat it like a claim in science. What evidence would you use to try to prove your hypothesis wrong?
’s like asserting that because I can’t give the scientific explanation for why the grass is green, it must not be, while I am pointing at the grass on the ground and showing you its color.
Your analogy is false. We have as much data as we want that grass is green. We have no data about the future since it hasn’t happened yet. To predict the future to any degree we have to look at trends of the past and apply the scientific method to it.
Again, it’s up to you to be willing to accept the reality in front of you
Forgot the name for this one. It is when you assume the conclusion to get the conclusion. I know it’s a basic logical fallacy.
I can only lead you to water.
Ok your Cassandra/Jeremiah routine is wearing thin.
…Right. So, based entirely on faith, with nothing to substantiate it, and with a healthy dose of some weird Messianic complex.
Also, as another commenter pointed out, we actually have surprisingly robust data affirming that yes, indeed, the spectral albedo of grass does show peaks in the 530-550nm range correlating to M-type cone photoreceptor cells— I.E., Is green. Civil war isn’t the sort of thing you’re going to be able to pass off as self-evident.
A viewpoint like that is very subject to confirmation bias. Literally any crime is held up as evidence that it is correct. Look at the terms you are using “cold” “about a decade”. It isn’t a who, what, where, why, and how. It is vague.
Reverse it for a moment. Treat it like a claim in science. What evidence would you use to try to prove your hypothesis wrong?
Removed by mod
These are rhetoric tricks. Refusing to defend your viewpoint and trying to use carrot+stick.
Why not answer my question? It will be easier than bring out stuff that would have been caught that easily.
Removed by mod
…what the fuck are you talking about.
Removed by mod
Your analogy is false. We have as much data as we want that grass is green. We have no data about the future since it hasn’t happened yet. To predict the future to any degree we have to look at trends of the past and apply the scientific method to it.
Forgot the name for this one. It is when you assume the conclusion to get the conclusion. I know it’s a basic logical fallacy.
Ok your Cassandra/Jeremiah routine is wearing thin.
Bifurcation, and FUD.
Tautology. Circular reasoning, if you will.
…Right. So, based entirely on faith, with nothing to substantiate it, and with a
healthydose of some weird Messianic complex.Also, as another commenter pointed out, we actually have surprisingly robust data affirming that yes, indeed, the spectral albedo of grass does show peaks in the 530-550nm range correlating to M-type cone photoreceptor cells— I.E., Is green. Civil war isn’t the sort of thing you’re going to be able to pass off as self-evident.