The point of science is to argue against itself before concluding it's results, that's how the scientific method works. Meaning the results were already challenged by the scientists themselves.
You can still challenge Obama's opinion though, it's just not a logical fallacy, it's a disagreement.
Yeah but if Obama is not also telling the viewer that the government only providing funding to scientists that would prove climate is man made.. isn't that a fallacy?
No, a fallacy is a mistaken belief based on unsound logic. The logic of consulting climate scientists about the climate is not unsound. It’s the same reason we consult meteorologists about the weather and not psychics.
Look up “logical fallacies” and you will see a list of them. The Sunk-Cost Fallacy example I gave was just one of many.
The point of science is to argue against itself before concluding it's results, that's how the scientific method works. Meaning the results were already challenged by the scientists themselves.
You can still challenge Obama's opinion though, it's just not a logical fallacy, it's a disagreement.
Yeah but if Obama is not also telling the viewer that the government only providing funding to scientists that would prove climate is man made.. isn't that a fallacy?
No, a fallacy is a mistaken belief based on unsound logic. The logic of consulting climate scientists about the climate is not unsound. It’s the same reason we consult meteorologists about the weather and not psychics.
Look up “logical fallacies” and you will see a list of them. The Sunk-Cost Fallacy example I gave was just one of many.
I just learned something. Thank you
You’re very welcome.