Timeline for If everything is theory laden, how can one argue against climate change deniers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 10, 2017 at 16:46 | vote | accept | Alexander S King | ||
| Apr 9, 2017 at 21:55 | answer | added | Dan Hicks | timeline score: 7 | |
| Dec 5, 2016 at 18:25 | comment | added | Dave | Only tangentially related to the philosophical question, but gets at the practical aspects: youtu.be/YezbREhH_Eg | |
| Oct 12, 2016 at 9:41 | answer | added | alanf | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 12, 2016 at 4:43 | answer | added | Alecto | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 22:46 | answer | added | Dark_Firaga | timeline score: 0 | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 15:01 | comment | added | Era | Theory-ladenness doesn't imply that all theories are "just as good" with respect to empirical observations. I'm not sure where this bizarre idea came from. | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 10:34 | answer | added | user22791 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 4:22 | history | edited | Alexander S King | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Jul 15, 2016 at 2:03 | history | edited | Alexander S King | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Jul 15, 2016 at 0:54 | answer | added | Apodictic Apple Juice | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 14, 2016 at 16:13 | answer | added | user9166 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 14, 2016 at 12:27 | answer | added | mart | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 14, 2016 at 1:28 | comment | added | Conifold | We make decisions every day without clear cut criteria, they are based on experience more than explicit reasoning, and yet they are not arbitrary. A paradigm explicates some of that and then reasoning becomes possible, but under a paradigm there are facts, evidence, etc. So there are two choices: argue a case under the paradigm, or convince society to change it. Neither is a walk. The second is not done by reasoning and suppositions, it has no method or criteria, but requires practical success, and harshly judged. Those who have no stomach for the second are bound by the first. | |
| Jul 13, 2016 at 15:58 | comment | added | Dave | @AlexanderSKing right, and for global warming, the 1970's (or so) might be an appropriate analogy to the time where the idea was out there, but the justifying observations hadn't been made conclusive yet. However now, on this topic, we are well past Kepler. (to drag out the analogy even further) But you'd still have to teach, and get acceptance of, a whole bunch of background information (on the planets, how we measure their locations, ...) to get an astrologer to update their beliefs. | |
| Jul 13, 2016 at 15:45 | comment | added | Alexander S King | @Dave I guess that would work, but then think of the proverbial Coprenicus vs Ptolemy case: Geocentrism certainly seemed to fit better into the accepted frameworks of the time. | |
| Jul 13, 2016 at 15:41 | comment | added | Dave | With your footnote: isn't the answer just tracking back through the chain/network of assumption/evidence/justification and verifying how it hangs together, and assessing how much flexibility the poorly constrained/justified aspects allow in your conclusions? | |
| Jul 13, 2016 at 15:34 | answer | added | Dave | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 13, 2016 at 15:33 | history | edited | Alexander S King | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 500 characters in body
|
| Jul 13, 2016 at 14:22 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/753233086389813248 | ||
| Jul 13, 2016 at 13:16 | answer | added | Scott.Boy | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 13, 2016 at 5:24 | comment | added | Swami Vishwananda | And there's a chance that when throw a ball straight up in the air that it will suddenly achieve orbital velocity. But the odds are that it will fall down onto my head. Most physicists will bet that the ball will fall on my head. Most doctors will bet that vaxs are ok. Most climatologists will bet that climate change is real. As a person who lived his childhood before the discovery of the vaxs for measles and mumps, and had both - AND had permanent heart damage from the measles (it does more than cause a skin irritation) - I would say get the VAXXS!!! | |
| Jul 13, 2016 at 5:08 | answer | added | philosopher | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jul 13, 2016 at 0:36 | history | edited | Alexander S King | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body; edited title
|
| Jul 13, 2016 at 0:08 | history | asked | Alexander S King | CC BY-SA 3.0 |