His scientific inquiry was demonstrably independent of his personal perspective. In your argument, You have conflated how he conducts scientific inquiry with science with his personal perspective on political activism.I don't know, what did I say wrong? … I made direct quotes from the article. This one for instance … hope of galvanizing locals to take up arms against the carbon crisis. Is that objective science?
Saying that you are trying to to be entertaining doesn’t excuse bad logic and alternative facts. You’re whipping up people’s prejudices rather than appealing to logic. I suspect that’s your intent, and you find that entertaining.
Your posts contain the classic example of the ad hominem argument, which “ typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive... “
(Thanks to the online dictionary. They defined it more succinctly than I possible could)
I’m glad to hear you say you are probably more on my side of things than I think ( in some way, in terms of what? Fisheries, housing markets, marine biology, economics, politics?). I’m sure you’re a nice guy. It’s not personal. But I think it’s fair to say have different ideas regarding the right standards for political rhetoric and scientific discourse.
.
Last edited: