.

Bingo

Friends, how do you think public education is successful for human development? Is it better to engage in self-education? and if so, how best to organize it?

How would you know what you don't know unless someone educates you to the fact you don't know? And if one doesn't know, how does one then assess whether that someone actually knows what they're talking about?

For example, how can one claim "Global warming, which is mainly caused by humans, is causing an increase in natural disasters worldwide." when there is no empirical evidence to support such assertions?

I think that a lot depends on a person’s self-awareness - who wants to study and who consciously refuses to receive knowledge. Public education and self-education are also important. I prefer the second because at the university in my opinion there are a lot of subjects that we will not need in life, for example, writing an essay. Why do I need this in the future? therefore, I act rationally and order it from write my essay. In the meantime, I use my free time to listen to some interesting lectures on YouTube and get information from them that I can apply in my life

Substitute the words "god exists" for the sentence you have in italics. I would argue that there's a lot more empirical evidence to support climate change. But then again, how would you know what you don't know unless someone educates you to the fact that you don't know? And boy, do you not know.

Oh dear! I see the Dunning-Kruger persists.

I suggest you do a little research on "straw-man" argument.

I suggest you do a little research on climate science. Or not. Who cares.

Who cares?

Well, clearly you do, though I do question your understanding. Let's take your previous comment, for example.

"Substitute the words 'god exists' for the sentence you have in italics. I would argue that there's a lot more empirical evidence to support climate change. But then again, how would you know what you don't know unless someone educates you to the fact that you don't know? And boy, do you not know."

So as to be clear, you suggest I replace:

"Global warming, which is mainly caused by humans, is causing an increase in natural disasters worldwide."

with

"God exists."

and then go on to assert "that there's a lot more empirical evidence to support climate change" than, I presume, God?

Well, with due apologies to those of faith, I entirely agree. Climate changes, I have never claimed otherwise. What I do challenge, though, is the proposition from Jazh (in a separate and now deleted post) that global warming is primarily anthropogenic and that there has been an increasing number of natural disasters as a result. Accordingly you have, (whether by design or ignorance), attempted to refute an argument I have not made and implied I deny something which I don't. Clearly you have, as the definition goes, attacked a strawman...

"A straw man (or strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"."

So now that we're singing from the same hymn sheet, would you care to take up the challenge presented by Jazh and offer evidence in support of his(?) assertions?

No. Did you miss the part about "who cares"?

You should really move here. You have so much in common with our current President. He's a science denier too. He also tries, and fails, to be condescending just like you try and fail. You guys are cut from the same cloth.

Did you not see where I said "clearly you do" - evidenced, once again, by your responding. The return to the banal is a little disappointing though.

Go on, be a devil, change the habit of lifeline, offer some evidence for your assertions.

hi

Hey there........