(Excelente) clase de lógica - ontológica

Escribe Mr.Robert Blumen en el Ludwig von Mises Institute. El tema es el calentamiento global, más exactamente el problema de qué tanto o cómo sería éste un resultado del actuar del hombre (y también qué hacer al respecto): en inglés AGW (anthropogenic global warming)

Extracto de apertura:

"A friend of mine sent me a link to a video labeled "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See." According to YouTube, this video has been viewed over 3.5 million times. Narrator Greg Craven, a high-school science teacher, presents an application of the precautionary principle to the debate over anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Craven claims to have found an argument that does not depend on the resolution of the scientific controversy — a "silver bullet argument," an argument that leads to an "inescapable conclusion," one "that even the most hardened skeptic and the most panicked activist can agree on."

I beg to differ.

Craven starts out with the premise that we can reduce the problem to one of four possible outcomes, which he places on a grid (as shown below). The rows represent the proposition that the worst outcome of AGW (the end of human life on earth) is on its way or is not. The columns represent the choice to do something or do nothing.

Craven then proceeds to examine the implications of ending up in each one of his four quadrants. I have written an abbreviation of his conclusion in the cells of the table:



"

(no se deje de leer el resto; sea lo que sea lo que se crea que se nos viene)

***

Una vez que uno se "rinde ante la premisa", es imposible oponerse a la lógica (no importa lo que demuestre); ergo, lo importante es la premisa (lo que hay, lo ontológico); sólo establecido ésto (asegurado), podemos "dejar entrar" a la "loca de la lógica" a la discusión :-)