OMNILIBRIUM
  Rational Discussion of Controversial Topics


GO TO THE MAIN THREAD Sort By:


ChristianKl 19 September 2015 07:57 AM
63%

I think Global Warming works much better as an example then creationism.

With creationism the theist side doesn't really make scientific arguments. With Global Warming you at least find a bunch of people who care about arguing within the realm of science on the skeptic side.

stars0
Reply


melian 19 September 2015 01:21 PM
70%

With creationism the case is pretty straightforward. One side can present strong scientific arguments, while the other can present only pseudo-scientific arguments. Students who learned the general difference between the two types of arguments and who are not emotionally bound to one of the sides should be able to see this difference.

With global warming the case is really complicated. The majority of both supporters and opponents of the theory do not care about real science but only about theory’s political implications. The arguments of both sides tend to be very fuzzy.


stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 19 September 2015 04:30 PM
60%

If you discuss the topic in school the majority doesnt really matter. When discussing the topic in school it makes sense to use high quality texts.

stars0
Reply


melian 20 September 2015 07:02 AM
68%

If the majority doesn’t matter who decides what makes a “high quality text”? Suppose a person in charge of the curriculum is an opponent of the GW theory. Would you trust him with selecting the best arguments to represent the pro-GW side?

stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 20 September 2015 12:48 PM
62%

The point that people in charge of the curriculum are likely to mess this up is a general argument against doing what you propose, but I think it makes sense to focus on how to do such a thing well.

When it comes to selecting high quality sources, a straightforward way is to filter for people who have published academic papers on climate science instead of taking texts from random internet bloggers and other parties who are mainly driven by ideology. You find people with crediantials on both sides.

stars0
Reply


melian 21 September 2015 06:59 AM
68%

filter for people who have published academic papers on climate science

The question is who will do the filtering. A single person/body in charge of filtering would have no trouble to destroy the case for one of the sides simply by selecting the weakest evidence from the relevant papers or arguments that students would find hard to understand. Parties driven by ideology at least have a direct interest in presenting the strongest case for their cause.


stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 27 September 2015 02:48 PM
61%

Do the extend that's a significant question you don't want to have that debate in schools in the first place.

stars0
Reply