Me too. I do agree with what you say about the data tampering scandals and "widening the bullseye" by renaming Global Warming to the all encompassing Climate Change. I wonder if not only any type of catastrophic events could potentially be used as evidence of Climate Change, except if a lack of catastrophic events could also be used. For example, if we saw a marked reduction in hurricanes, I wonder if that could be interpreted as proof of Climate Change. I had never heard the term Logical Positivism, except I read what I could find on the internet and watched a few videos and I believe my viewpoints do fall in line with that basic outlook. I like the idea of a high standard for verifiability of claims for both arguments and counterarguments. I feel this is a better form of strict analysis than simply taking a critical stance against something and trying to keep the opposing viewpoint forever on the defensive. It should be about who can do the best job of illustrating their version of the truth, not who can prevent the other person from getting their points across persuasively. This doesn't mean we can't rebutt, we simply limit our rebuttals to factual counter points, as opposed to unsubstantiated hypotheses as to why the opposing argument is biased or irrelevant. As far as arguments based on the future are concerned, I have no problem with someone making a prediction. Where I take offense is trying to use that prediction as evidence of another argument or as a rebuttal to an argument. I also take issue with someone becoming incredulous because someone else is not convinced of the accuracy of their prediction. I have personally witnessed two individuals literally screaming at each other over who was going to win the World Series. I swear I thought it was actually going to come to blows. The World Series was scheduled to start in a few days. They were both red-face flabbergasted as to how the other person couldn't see the infallability of their "logic". They saw the assertions they were using as "evidence" to support their theories as logical inferences and the other person was simply being dense in their opinion. What depressed me at the time is that one of those blustering buffoons was going to be proven "right". It never occured to either of them to wait until the game was actually played. It almost assuredly also never occured to them that if the two teams had played the World Series again, the outcome may very well have been the opposite. I get frustrated sometimes because I can't figure out how to convince people to conduct themselves in a calm, dispassionate manner, hear the other person out, stick to the facts, and overall behave properly. They behave irrationally and attempt to blame the other person for their inappropraite behavior. I know deep down everyone wants to remain calm and emotionally disconnected from whatever issue is being discussed, except something is breaking down somewhere in society. It also results in a more fair and "sporting" discussion if both parties follow civilized ground rules regardless of the issue. I beleive that as a society, we tend to make better, more informed decisions following a more informative style of debate. To test this, the best idea I can come up with is to videotape public speaking contest types of debates and more chaotic types, test the audiences knowledge of both sides of the issue before and after the debates, and then measure which style of debate appears to be more useful for educating the audience.