Rubi SoHo
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #46
I also have science credentials, but I don’t need to wave them about to try to convince others they should take my word at face value. I’ll simply hold you to the basic “support your claim with evidence” doctrine that is the cornerstone of good science.lol. The proof is left to the reader.
People with science creds get it.
It's easy to toss out the words "peer reviewed," and yes that is were good data lives. It's also behind paywalls.
Do you have access to the environmental science journals via your job or university?
Are you willing to do just a little bit of homework yourself?
I know you'll find articles on the effect of plastics on birds and fish. I have friends who have studied this.
Not sure if there are articles on the effect of rubber granuals in the desert. Would be a good study. But the analogy of plastic is sound.
In a debate, it falls upon the person making the claim to provide proof/evidence of the claim’s veracity. If your science credentials are as you say they are, you surely know this well. You don’t get to just make something up in your polymer science career and then tell everyone else “prove me wrong!” That’s not how science works.
But this post makes it clear that you have no data. You’re making large assumptions about what you think you know or can assume based upon plastics science. You freely admit you have not read any data that shows that rubber shed from jeep tires in Moab is directly responsible for the types of environmental damage you’re implying it is responsible for.
It’s just as likely that the tire granules are not doing the damage you suggest, and until someone studies it and proves otherwise, you shouldn’t use your appeal to authority fallacy to argue that certain segments of the population should be barred from accessing public lands due to their preferred method of doing so.
Sponsored
Last edited: