Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguitarguy
For starters, it should be obvious that these "conclusions" are predictions of the future, and any predictions of the future are not factual.
|
I'd say many predictions of the future are factual:
-You pull over for flashing lights predicting he/she wants to get by you, or give you a ticket. Either way, based on past events (and general consensus, which is correct in this case), you predict you are supposed to pull over.
-You take off when the light turns green predicting that conflicting traffic has yielded for a red light on their side. You can't see their red, but from past events you predict your green light means its safe.
-I can predict a tank mpg of 42.7 mpg +/- in the Civic for next week based on past tanks trending towards that range. Its a prediction of the future, based on observations of the past.
As far as tradeoffs (ie ANWR drilling), there are many, most of which I am not aware of. The DOE report simply details the economic/transportation benefits, it does not (nor does it claim to) be all-encompassing. It simply presents a fact-based analysis that differed from an argument above.
The goal of a trial is not to convict the accused, but for both sides to compare facts and try to discern who has a greater body of facts to tip the scales their way (of course each side would only produce facts that support their point, if both parties do that then each acts as a "check" of the other parties' argument anyways).
As tasdrouille said
Quote:
|
Remember folks, you can always find a source out there that will prove any point. What really matters is the general concensus amongst studies.
|
Agreed. If something is true, which source it came from shouldn't really matter, the consensus from multiple (honest) studies would have to converge anyways. If it doesn't someone's conclusions may be subject to emotional bias.
Great talking to you all, I'm reading some logical arguments here. I just like being a pain
