One issue with language (even english though the context is much lower than many other languages) is that the meaning of words and terms often has more to do with the contextual history of how the word has been used than with the literal meaning of the word.
An argument against a very specific definition of the word when its not the standard understood usage is generally considered a fallacy, because it doesn't disprove the actual information as it is understood, it disproves different information entirely.
In the case of your claim about 'not believing in global warming is like not believing in a thermometer' I believe this is the case. People are not saying they don't have faith in global warming, and people aren't saying that they don't believe that the earth has the ability to warm up.
The contextual culturally understood meaning of 'I don't believe in global warming' is 'I don't believe the earth is currently warming because of human activity' You won't find many people that believe that the earth is not capable of globally warming (though I guess there might be some creationists...), nor that it does not warm globally from time to time. Not believing a thing can happen is a valid standpoint (though I'd argue they're wrong)
Second, is the issue of 'prove'. I think you're arguing against a more strict definition of logical or mathematical proof. The more common contextual definition people use in their everyday lives deals more with 'shows to be likely true, or sufficient evidence to believe is true' is more the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' version. Science does this. Gravity is basically proven beyond a reasonable doubt to exist in some manner.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 21/4/10 20:51 (UTC)An argument against a very specific definition of the word when its not the standard understood usage is generally considered a fallacy, because it doesn't disprove the actual information as it is understood, it disproves different information entirely.
In the case of your claim about 'not believing in global warming is like not believing in a thermometer' I believe this is the case. People are not saying they don't have faith in global warming, and people aren't saying that they don't believe that the earth has the ability to warm up.
The contextual culturally understood meaning of 'I don't believe in global warming' is 'I don't believe the earth is currently warming because of human activity' You won't find many people that believe that the earth is not capable of globally warming (though I guess there might be some creationists...), nor that it does not warm globally from time to time. Not believing a thing can happen is a valid standpoint (though I'd argue they're wrong)
Second, is the issue of 'prove'. I think you're arguing against a more strict definition of logical or mathematical proof. The more common contextual definition people use in their everyday lives deals more with 'shows to be likely true, or sufficient evidence to believe is true' is more the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' version. Science does this. Gravity is basically proven beyond a reasonable doubt to exist in some manner.