Why the Right Wing Rejects Science

Such extrapolations are used in scientific method all the time. What is funny is you pretending to understand the scientific method when clearly you do not.

Me = "Scientist" You = someone who is not who is talking out their backside.

 

No one has ever proven my statements wrong. Therefore my statements are factual.

 

And what you propose has never been demonstrated in the real world.

 

What is it you think I am proposing ?

 

This is logical fallacy on steroids. Not being able to prove a claim wrong does not prove a claim true. This is Logic 101.

Just because someone living in the 1500's could not prove the moon was not made of green cheese - did not make the claim "the moon is made of green cheese" true / "factual".

 

For a minute I thought this was going to be a thread about real science, not social science and/or pseudoscience.

 

And yet we now know that the moon is not made of cheese because that has been proven false. No one has ever been able to disprove my statements. Therefore they are factual.

 

That AGW is responsible for global warming. That has never been proven.

 

Someone living in the 1500's did not know the moon was not made of green cheese ... just like we do not know that some moon orbiting a planet in the Alpha Centauri star system is not filled with green cheese.

Just because no one can disprove the claim "the Moon around planet X in the Alpha Centauri System is made of green cheese" does not make that claim true.

Your claim that not being able to disprove a claim makes that claim true is pure unadulterated logical fallacy. And a well known one at that.

The proper name for this fallacy is

 

That is not what I have been proposing.

 

It is an absolute fact that every human life begins at conception. This has never been and never will be disproven.

 

You keep repeating the same fallacious gibberish over and over like some broken record hoping that repetition will somehow convert a false premise into something true.

It is an absolute fact that your claim is false.

Your claim has been disproven. There are 5 different scientific perspectives on "when human life begins" - Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological, Ecological.

4 of these perspectives claim a point other than conception as the beginning, 1 (the genetic perspective) argues that human life begins at conception.

In order for your claim "Genetic Perspective is absolute fact" to be true, the other 4 claims must be disproven .. and you, nor anyone else has done this.

If this had been done the Genetic perspective would be called a "Theory" rather than a perspective.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but your claim is completely false.

 

Human life begins at conception. Name one person whose life has not begun at conception. The theory of least surprise clearly shows that I'm correct.

 

Either you are being intentionally obtuse or you have no ability for logic or reason.

Asking dumb questions "Name one person who's life has not begun at conception" is not proof of anything.

At conception - not a single cell in this potential person you are referring to exists.

How can a human exist - when not a single human cell in the structure of that human exists ?

 

The human egg fertilized by a human sperm cell which is the beginning of a human life doesn’t exist ?? That’s idiotic.

 

It is all about emotional quotient and the dominance of feelings over critical thinking. It’s why the right need shock jocks like Rush to think for them. The right is driven by emotions and feelings. The left is driven by logic and facts. Of course there is overlap in the middle like all distributions.

 

Too funny. Why is it than none of the economic analyses cited by the alarmists never includes the benefits on global warming ?? If the benefits are included the next ~ 3 deg C of warming are net beneficial. The cost benefit curve goes negative because of air conditioning cost increases. If you claim to be driven by facts how do you explain the preceding ??

 

Sorry, I don’t have facts to reply to you post....

 

Do your homework. “Climate Economics” - Richard Tol and “How Much Have Global Problems Cost the World” - Edited by Lomborg

 

No thanks, I have other projects I am working on....

 

So your claim that the right is not educated about global warming is BS. When given the means for self education you aren’t interested.

 

For the left, it's all about society; for the right, it's all about God. For both, its all about using emotion to manipulate the mob into giving them political power. The seek this power to ease the pain of betraying the hero in their souls--heroes don't seek political power, they seek their own visions, pursue their own dreams, live their own lives. The politician is the polar opposite.

So spare me the hilarious, phony, righteousness of the non-existent objective left. If they were objective, they wouldn't be left.

Ayn Rand: "The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories—with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe—but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/conservatives_vs_liberals.html

 

I never said anything about climate change, not the topic of the OP

 

Interesting take. First off the Ann rand quote is hilarious, thanks.

And I may not totally disagree with the god/society point. God is emotion. Society is real.

 

What is idiotic is claiming I said that a fertilized egg does not exist. I said no such thing.

What is also idiotic is thinking that repetition of claim constitutes proof of claim.