If someone comes up to me and informs me that "XYZ is wrong!", and I refer him to several books on the subject, how am I being anti-science?
I'm reminded of a friend's story back in undergrad. His lab TA told everyone "See that stuffed bear of there? That's Mr. Cuddles. If you have a question, ask Mr. Cuddles first. Then if he can't help you, ask a real TA."
What the AI_bot is dealing with is automatic handling of a large number of pre-canned, pre-debunked arguments, which appropriate reply _is_ "This has been debated before, check it out." Understanding other people's arguments is also part of the scientific process. Furthermore, the author of the bot is reviewing the activity, to ensure that arguments are not being inappropriately applied.
You are being anti-science because you don't know or understand the science, you're just giving them citations that are completely irrelevant to the question at hand. This has been my experience with global warming advocates- they believe what they believe and they have links to papers that they have never read to justify their faith.
I'm reminded of a friend's story back in undergrad. His lab TA told everyone "See that stuffed bear of there? That's Mr. Cuddles. If you have a question, ask Mr. Cuddles first. Then if he can't help you, ask a real TA."
What the AI_bot is dealing with is automatic handling of a large number of pre-canned, pre-debunked arguments, which appropriate reply _is_ "This has been debated before, check it out." Understanding other people's arguments is also part of the scientific process. Furthermore, the author of the bot is reviewing the activity, to ensure that arguments are not being inappropriately applied.