>>10851801This
>>10851816Fuck you you're wrong
>>10851692Your reasoning is wrong, even independently of the topic at hand.
You said:
I have the axiom : (because many people said Y, then Y is true) is wrong
I have the proposition : because of scientific consensus on X, X is true
The proposition matches the content of the parenthesis of my axiom, so I can substitute it.
This gives: (because of scientific consensus on X, X is true) is false. Qed.
Here X = climate change, but it could be anything.
The error is that the proposition cannot be matched with the axiom. More precisely, "scientific consensus" is not equivalent to "many people". The whole concept of scientific consensus has been defined so that logical arguments could be accepted as proofs. Said differently, the very reason scientific consensus has been defined is to be able to state "scientific consensus on X implies X".
It's precise definition is : many people gave logical arguments for X and there is no know proofs of " X is wrong".
We accept scientific consensus as an axiom in practice because it is impossible to make absolute mathematical proofs about reality (cf. Physics). So scientific consensus with logical arguments is the best alternative that we know of.
Tl;DR you're saying that scientific consensus is not an argument for anything (about reality). It's wrong by definition, and anybody with the slightest scientific education knows this.
