About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
We're making the same point. The premises "Some A are B," and "C is A," do not make it possible to conclude either that C is B or that C is not B. I've been saying that consistently in various ways.
My point is and has always been this: You can't say that C (the recession of the glacier) is B (due to global warming) from the initial premises.
Your first comment on this was
"The conclusion (C), reading:
(C) The retreat of the Kilimanjaro glacier is due to global warming.
is logically false."
That quoted comment is wrong. The conclusion C is logically incorrect (which was what I have been saying), but it is not logically false.
This time you say it is invalid. That's fine by me. From the beginning, I've been saying it's incorrect to draw that conclusion. It's indeterminate. It's invalid. It is not true, but it is not, as you said at first, false.
And that is enough of this silliness for me.
Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)