• @afraid_of_zombies
      link
      71 year ago

      ’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.

      Choose wisely. Your family depends on it.

      Bifurcation, and FUD.

      • @Intralexical
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        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.

        Tautology. Circular reasoning, if you will.

    • @Intralexical
      link
      English
      -11 year ago

      …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.