General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Do you think it is possible to believe one kind of science but deny another? [View all]Igel
(35,293 posts)Even without the narrow interpretation of "believe" as something taken on faith with no evidence. "Believe" can also just mean "have confidence in" with evidence to back it up. Silly word games in an effort to so narrow the argument that the conclusion has to be predetermined, rather than argued on the basis of evidence.
That's how the human mind works. It's not consistent. Doesn't need to be consistent. Most of those who have confidence in the assertions of global warming haven't looked at the tree ring evidence, calibration evidence from weather stations in the 1930s or 1970s, the distribution of weather stations over time or either the carbon dioxide concentrations in ice cap ice cores or calcium carbonate isotopes in coral cores. They haven't studied dendrology, they couldn't derive the equations for absolute radioisotope dating, nor prove that the math used to derive the equations was valid. Their "evidence" is all clearly hearsay, depending on having trust and confidence in those presenting the evidence, their ability to draw conclusions, and the independence of those conclusions from conflicts of interest.
(In other words, please note that when push comes to shove, unless you've actually collected the data yourself there 's an element of unsubstantiated trust and confidence that has to come into play. It's not all abstract reasoning, and those data aren't divinely revealed and therefore infallible.
One accepts what mostly readily fits with what one already accepts as true. Sometimes one accepts what is convenient, to avoid discomfort. One often accepts claims based not on the claims but on the attributes of the person making a claim--letters after the name, party affiliation, who else supports that person's claims. Often all of that depends on familiarity with the data and what "critical thinking" means in that particular discipline (since it seems to vary, with very good critical thinkers in one discipline having no clue how to think critically in another).