[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Questioning Scientific Consensus (Page 1 of 5)
Posted: 3/14/2015 7:14:42 PM EDT
|
Jump of any and all cliff like a good leming Break Point is good stuff. If you're not checking out Break Point , you're missing a free daily sip of critical thinking. “The Science is settled.” It’s a great argument ender that silences any who dare question the so-called “consensus of experts.” I say, let’s dare" "Today we recoil at eugenics, forced sterilization, and the language by which Holmes justified them. But, as Harry Bruinius documents in his 2007 book, “Better for All the World,” such practices and opinions reflected the so-called consensus of experts at the time." |
|
These "scientists" who claim that their opinions are fact are the exact opposite of the meaning of science. Science = Fact. There is no room for a consensus in science. There is truth, and then there is conjecture. Science isn't a vote among a group of humans. Either you can prove something as fact, or you can't; you know or don't know, that's it, that's all. Opinions are meaningless in science. The scientists of today would be better labeled as theorists, because most of the garbage they spew starts with "We think..." and not "We know...". A consensus among scientists believe global warming is fact. The words "consensus" and "believe" tell you right away that true science is not involved.
|
Definition of science in English:noun1The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: the world of science and technologyThere's quite a few assumptions in various fields that are not the result of observation and experiment. The Multiverse argument for example, which is a non-falsifiable non-observable theory invented to get around the extreme improbability that the universe just happened the way it did. Another, from what I understand, is the problems evolutionists have with abiogenesis, the lack of transitional forms in fossil records, and the timeline of mutation. The latter is so damning they are actually making up numbers to justify their theory. |
|
Quoted:
... The scientists of today would be better labeled as theorists, because most of the garbage they spew starts with "We think..." and not "We know...". A consensus among scientists believe global warming is fact. The words "consensus" and "believe" tell you right away that true science is not involved. Scientific "proof" is a misunderstood concept. Science never proves anything. Proofs are for mathematics. Science simply accumulates more and more evidence and creates more and more reliable theories. Speaking of which, "theories" are another misunderstood concept. In the scientific sense, theories are testable ideas that are always potentially refutable by evidence. The best theories, such as that of evolution, have withstood more than a century of challenges. Nevertheless, they always remain malleable. |
|
Quoted:... the problems evolutionists have with abiogenesis, the lack of transitional forms in fossil records... Quoted:... the problems evolutionists have with abiogenesis, the lack of transitional forms in fossil records... Nonsense. The fossil record is full of transitional species. What do you want, whales with legs? Well, we got 'em. Quoted:... and the timeline of mutation. The latter is so damning they are actually making up numbers to justify their theory. Nonsense again. The rate of change simply isn't a constant. Try letting the evidence shape your beliefs instead of the other way around. |
|
Quoted:
I just had a discussion with co-workers over the "97% of scientist say climate change is real and man made". None of them had any idea of how that number was derived, but they heard it from more than one source so it must be true. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ |
|
Quoted:
Scientific "proof" is a misunderstood concept. Science never proves anything. Proofs are for mathematics. Science simply accumulates more and more evidence and creates more and more reliable theories. Speaking of which, "theories" are another misunderstood concept. In the scientific sense, theories are testable ideas that are always potentially refutable by evidence. The best theories, such as that of evolution, have withstood more than a century of challenges. Nevertheless, they always remain malleable. Quoted:
Quoted:
... The scientists of today would be better labeled as theorists, because most of the garbage they spew starts with "We think..." and not "We know...". A consensus among scientists believe global warming is fact. The words "consensus" and "believe" tell you right away that true science is not involved. Scientific "proof" is a misunderstood concept. Science never proves anything. Proofs are for mathematics. Science simply accumulates more and more evidence and creates more and more reliable theories. Speaking of which, "theories" are another misunderstood concept. In the scientific sense, theories are testable ideas that are always potentially refutable by evidence. The best theories, such as that of evolution, have withstood more than a century of challenges. Nevertheless, they always remain malleable. Bullshit, science has proven countless things. We didn't get this level of technology based on educated guesses or theories. That's just bullshit that climate change supporters like to spew, since their hypothesis has no evidence to support it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just had a discussion with co-workers over the "97% of scientist say climate change is real and man made". None of them had any idea of how that number was derived, but they heard it from more than one source so it must be true. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ That 97% is more bullshit! http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/97-consensus/ |
|
Quoted:
Bullshit, science has proven countless things. We didn't get this level of technology based on educated guesses or theories. That's just bullshit that climate change supporters like to spew, since their hypothesis has no evidence to support it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... The scientists of today would be better labeled as theorists, because most of the garbage they spew starts with "We think..." and not "We know...". A consensus among scientists believe global warming is fact. The words "consensus" and "believe" tell you right away that true science is not involved. Scientific "proof" is a misunderstood concept. Science never proves anything. Proofs are for mathematics. Science simply accumulates more and more evidence and creates more and more reliable theories. Speaking of which, "theories" are another misunderstood concept. In the scientific sense, theories are testable ideas that are always potentially refutable by evidence. The best theories, such as that of evolution, have withstood more than a century of challenges. Nevertheless, they always remain malleable. Bullshit, science has proven countless things. We didn't get this level of technology based on educated guesses or theories. That's just bullshit that climate change supporters like to spew, since their hypothesis has no evidence to support it. Actually, that's true. All science advances through disproof. If it can't be disproven, it isn't science. |
|
Quoted: Nonsense. The fossil record is full of transitional species. What do you want, whales with legs? Well, we got 'em. Nonsense again. The rate of change simply isn't a constant. Try letting the evidence shape your beliefs instead of the other way around. Quoted: Quoted:... the problems evolutionists have with abiogenesis, the lack of transitional forms in fossil records... Nonsense. The fossil record is full of transitional species. What do you want, whales with legs? Well, we got 'em. Quoted:... and the timeline of mutation. The latter is so damning they are actually making up numbers to justify their theory. Nonsense again. The rate of change simply isn't a constant. Try letting the evidence shape your beliefs instead of the other way around. You should tell the scientists in the link that. Because none of the actual numbers are actually in the range of their "Facts"; thus they are basically making numbers up at this point |
|
Quoted:
That 97% is more bullshit! http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/97-consensus/ Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just had a discussion with co-workers over the "97% of scientist say climate change is real and man made". None of them had any idea of how that number was derived, but they heard it from more than one source so it must be true. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ That 97% is more bullshit! http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/97-consensus/ The blog you linked to is that of Anthony Watts. He's a former TV weatherman who is the most prominent climate-change denier. He's not a scientist. Pretty much everything he spouts has been thoroughly debunked. But he's the best they can come up with. So he's on one side of the issue, and on the other side are all the American and International scientific societies listed on the NASA link. |
|
Quoted: The blog you linked to is that of Anthony Watts. He's a former TV weatherman who is the most prominent climate-change denier. He's not a scientist. Pretty much everything he spouts has been thoroughly debunked. But he's the best they can come up with. So he's on one side of the issue, and on the other side are all the American and International scientific societies listed on the NASA link. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I just had a discussion with co-workers over the "97% of scientist say climate change is real and man made". None of them had any idea of how that number was derived, but they heard it from more than one source so it must be true. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ That 97% is more bullshit! http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/97-consensus/ The blog you linked to is that of Anthony Watts. He's a former TV weatherman who is the most prominent climate-change denier. He's not a scientist. Pretty much everything he spouts has been thoroughly debunked. But he's the best they can come up with. So he's on one side of the issue, and on the other side are all the American and International scientific societies listed on the NASA link.  |
|
Quoted:
Bullshit, science has proven countless things. We didn't get this level of technology based on educated guesses or theories. That's just bullshit that climate change supporters like to spew, since their hypothesis has no evidence to support it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... The scientists of today would be better labeled as theorists, because most of the garbage they spew starts with "We think..." and not "We know...". A consensus among scientists believe global warming is fact. The words "consensus" and "believe" tell you right away that true science is not involved. Scientific "proof" is a misunderstood concept. Science never proves anything. Proofs are for mathematics. Science simply accumulates more and more evidence and creates more and more reliable theories. Speaking of which, "theories" are another misunderstood concept. In the scientific sense, theories are testable ideas that are always potentially refutable by evidence. The best theories, such as that of evolution, have withstood more than a century of challenges. Nevertheless, they always remain malleable. Bullshit, science has proven countless things. We didn't get this level of technology based on educated guesses or theories. That's just bullshit that climate change supporters like to spew, since their hypothesis has no evidence to support it. They're Progressives. They hate skeptics. |
|
Quoted:
Scientific "proof" is a misunderstood concept. Science never proves anything. Proofs are for mathematics. Science simply accumulates more and more evidence and creates more and more reliable theories. Speaking of which, "theories" are another misunderstood concept. In the scientific sense, theories are testable ideas that are always potentially refutable by evidence. The best theories, such as that of evolution, have withstood more than a century of challenges. Nevertheless, they always remain malleable. Quoted:
Quoted:
... The scientists of today would be better labeled as theorists, because most of the garbage they spew starts with "We think..." and not "We know...". A consensus among scientists believe global warming is fact. The words "consensus" and "believe" tell you right away that true science is not involved. Scientific "proof" is a misunderstood concept. Science never proves anything. Proofs are for mathematics. Science simply accumulates more and more evidence and creates more and more reliable theories. Speaking of which, "theories" are another misunderstood concept. In the scientific sense, theories are testable ideas that are always potentially refutable by evidence. The best theories, such as that of evolution, have withstood more than a century of challenges. Nevertheless, they always remain malleable. perfectly said. |
|
Quoted:
The blog you linked to is that of Anthony Watts. He's a former TV weatherman who is the most prominent climate-change denier. He's not a scientist. Pretty much everything he spouts has been thoroughly debunked. But he's the best they can come up with. So he's on one side of the issue, and on the other side are all the American and International scientific societies listed on the NASA link. Quoted:
Quoted:
... The blog you linked to is that of Anthony Watts. He's a former TV weatherman who is the most prominent climate-change denier. He's not a scientist. Pretty much everything he spouts has been thoroughly debunked. But he's the best they can come up with. So he's on one side of the issue, and on the other side are all the American and International scientific societies listed on the NASA link. disagree here though. watts is a skeptic, not a denier. his arguments are scientific rather than political, and are supported by empirical evidence and clear reasoning. you may disagree with him, but he has to be taken seriously. |
|
The problem with the global warming political movement is that it's so full of assumptions and "settled science" that is so much bullshit. Yeah you can make the argument that the climate is changing, but what is the perfect climate? Has the climate ever been stable? Is a warmer climate a bad thing? And most damning of all, how the fuck does Marxism improve the climate? |
|
Quoted:
Overall, consensus isn't science, and peer-review, in of itself, doesn't make a theory a fact. Especially of the peers reviewing a paper have a personal investment in a certain outcome. As I explained above, theories never become fact. They are always potentially malleable with new evidence. If you are curious about how the scientific method works, you could Google it. And while of course individual scientists may be dishonest, the beauty of the Scientific Method, with objective experiments and statistical analysis followed by peer review and repeatability, is that scrupulous honesty is built into it by design. "Science replaces private prejudices with verifiable public evidence." - Richard Dawkins |
|
Quoted: As I explained above, theories never become fact. They are always potentially malleable with new evidence. If you are curious about how the scientific method works, you could Google it. And while of course individual scientists may be dishonest, the beauty of the Scientific Method, with objective experiments and statistical analysis followed by peer review and repeatability, is that scrupulous honesty is built into it by design. "Science replaces private prejudices with verifiable public evidence." - Richard Dawkins Quoted: Quoted: Overall, consensus isn't science, and peer-review, in of itself, doesn't make a theory a fact. Especially of the peers reviewing a paper have a personal investment in a certain outcome. As I explained above, theories never become fact. They are always potentially malleable with new evidence. If you are curious about how the scientific method works, you could Google it. And while of course individual scientists may be dishonest, the beauty of the Scientific Method, with objective experiments and statistical analysis followed by peer review and repeatability, is that scrupulous honesty is built into it by design. "Science replaces private prejudices with verifiable public evidence." - Richard Dawkins Problem is, so many use the "it's peer-reviewed!" as something other than an appeal to authority/consensus. |
|
Quoted:
The blog you linked to is that of Anthony Watts. He's a former TV weatherman who is the most prominent climate-change denier. He's not a scientist. Pretty much everything he spouts has been thoroughly debunked. But he's the best they can come up with. So he's on one side of the issue, and on the other side are all the American and International scientific societies listed on the NASA link. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just had a discussion with co-workers over the "97% of scientist say climate change is real and man made". None of them had any idea of how that number was derived, but they heard it from more than one source so it must be true. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ That 97% is more bullshit! http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/97-consensus/ The blog you linked to is that of Anthony Watts. He's a former TV weatherman who is the most prominent climate-change denier. He's not a scientist. Pretty much everything he spouts has been thoroughly debunked. But he's the best they can come up with. So he's on one side of the issue, and on the other side are all the American and International scientific societies listed on the NASA link. He's not "the best they can come up with" (who is "they", BTW?), he's not "the most prominent"; he's just a guy with a website that shares information about the climate change theory. It started primarily as a way to show how much error there is in the data collection, and how there isn't as much warming as claimed. NOTHING on his website has been "debunked". But your use of the term "denier" shows that you are a believer in the earth worshiping religion of climate change, and not a man of science. No man of science would ever call someone a "denier" because they question a theory. The scientific method requires skepticism! And besides the fact that science does not work on consensus, there isn't one (in the field of climate change). “Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best.” -Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H. Austin “The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities.” - Retired NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan “I am appalled at the state of discord in the field of climate science…There is no observational evidence that the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused any temperature perturbations in the atmosphere.” - atmospheric scientist Dr. George T. Wolff “The recent ‘panic’ to control GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that US, and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms.” - Climatologist and Paloeclimate researcher Dr. Diane Douglas "My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy." -Dr. John S. Theon, Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. |
|
Quoted:
The problem with the global warming political movement is that it's so full of assumptions and "settled science" that is so much bullshit. Yeah you can make the argument that the climate is changing, but what is the perfect climate? Has the climate ever been stable? Is a warmer climate a bad thing? And most damning of all, how the fuck does Marxism improve the climate? Of course the climate is always in flux. The difference this time is that the rate of change is very rapid, and there are massive human populations that will be displaced by rising sea levels and affected by changing weather patterns. |
|
Quoted:
That 97% is more bullshit! http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/97-consensus/ Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just had a discussion with co-workers over the "97% of scientist say climate change is real and man made". None of them had any idea of how that number was derived, but they heard it from more than one source so it must be true. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ That 97% is more bullshit! http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/97-consensus/ ...and here we go. Don't know how the number was derived, but let's repeat it. EDIT: Here's how the data was derived Figures never lie…. |
|
Quoted:
There's quite a few assumptions in various fields that are not the result of observation and experiment. The Multiverse argument for example, which is a non-falsifiable non-observable theory invented to get around the extreme improbability that the universe just happened the way it did. Another, from what I understand, is the problems evolutionists have with abiogenesis, the lack of transitional forms in fossil records, and the timeline of mutation. The latter is so damning they are actually making up numbers to justify their theory. Quoted:
Definition of science in English:noun1The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: the world of science and technologyThere's quite a few assumptions in various fields that are not the result of observation and experiment. The Multiverse argument for example, which is a non-falsifiable non-observable theory invented to get around the extreme improbability that the universe just happened the way it did. Another, from what I understand, is the problems evolutionists have with abiogenesis, the lack of transitional forms in fossil records, and the timeline of mutation. The latter is so damning they are actually making up numbers to justify their theory. Did you really really think this through before crashing and burning this badly in public. Read the green. read the red. See any disconnect? even a little? And the blue. oh freaking come on. Are you really that obtuse?? extreme improbability that it happened the way it did? I would venture to say it's 100% conclusive that it happened the way it did. Or are you trying to tell us it happened some other way and what we see outside is not how it ended up? Or are you trying to tell us your belief (which may be more valid to you than the beliefs of others) is that an omnipotent being made it happen in 6000 years, even though there is no record for that than a history of an ancient nomadic tribe, as opposed to a plethora of observable and verifiable phenomena almost universally believed in by most people except for the Scientologists who believe in benevolent aliens. |
|
Quoted: Did you really really think this through before crashing and burning this badly in public. Read the green. read the red. See any disconnect? even a little? And the blue. oh freaking come on. Are you really that obtuse?? extreme improbability that it happened the way it did? I would venture to say it's 100% conclusive that it happened the way it did. Or are you trying to tell us it happened some other way and what we see outside is not how it ended up? Or are you trying to tell us your belief (which may be more valid to you than the beliefs of others) is that an omnipotent being made it happen in 6000 years, even though there is no record for that than a history of an ancient nomadic tribe, as opposed to a plethora of observable and verifiable phenomena almost universally believed in by most people except for the Scientologists who believe in benevolent aliens. Quoted: Quoted: Definition of science in English:noun1The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: the world of science and technologyThere's quite a few assumptions in various fields that are not the result of observation and experiment. The Multiverse argument for example, which is a non-falsifiable non-observable theory invented to get around the extreme improbability that the universe just happened the way it did. Another, from what I understand, is the problems evolutionists have with abiogenesis, the lack of transitional forms in fossil records, and the timeline of mutation. The latter is so damning they are actually making up numbers to justify their theory. Did you really really think this through before crashing and burning this badly in public. Read the green. read the red. See any disconnect? even a little? And the blue. oh freaking come on. Are you really that obtuse?? extreme improbability that it happened the way it did? I would venture to say it's 100% conclusive that it happened the way it did. Or are you trying to tell us it happened some other way and what we see outside is not how it ended up? Or are you trying to tell us your belief (which may be more valid to you than the beliefs of others) is that an omnipotent being made it happen in 6000 years, even though there is no record for that than a history of an ancient nomadic tribe, as opposed to a plethora of observable and verifiable phenomena almost universally believed in by most people except for the Scientologists who believe in benevolent aliens. And started with circular reasoning to boot. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, Dawkins is not the guy you religious fundamentalists want talking about actual science. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Overall, consensus isn't science, and peer-review, in of itself, doesn't make a theory a fact. Especially of the peers reviewing a paper have a personal investment in a certain outcome. As I explained above, theories never become fact. They are always potentially malleable with new evidence. If you are curious about how the scientific method works, you could Google it. And while of course individual scientists may be dishonest, the beauty of the Scientific Method, with objective experiments and statistical analysis followed by peer review and repeatability, is that scrupulous honesty is built into it by design. "Science replaces private prejudices with verifiable public evidence." - Richard Dawkins Fixed it for you. |
|
Quoted: Fixed it for you. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Overall, consensus isn't science, and peer-review, in of itself, doesn't make a theory a fact. Especially of the peers reviewing a paper have a personal investment in a certain outcome. As I explained above, theories never become fact. They are always potentially malleable with new evidence. If you are curious about how the scientific method works, you could Google it. And while of course individual scientists may be dishonest, the beauty of the Scientific Method, with objective experiments and statistical analysis followed by peer review and repeatability, is that scrupulous honesty is built into it by design. "Science replaces private prejudices with verifiable public evidence." - Richard Dawkins Fixed it for you. Atheist fundamentalists on the other hand love the guy. |
|
Quoted:
As I explained above, theories never become fact. They are always potentially malleable with new evidence. If you are curious about how the scientific method works, you could Google it. And while of course individual scientists may be dishonest, the beauty of the Scientific Method, with objective experiments and statistical analysis followed by peer review and repeatability, is that scrupulous honesty is built into it by design. "Science replaces private prejudices with verifiable public evidence." - Richard Dawkins Quoted:
Quoted:
Overall, consensus isn't science, and peer-review, in of itself, doesn't make a theory a fact. Especially of the peers reviewing a paper have a personal investment in a certain outcome. As I explained above, theories never become fact. They are always potentially malleable with new evidence. If you are curious about how the scientific method works, you could Google it. And while of course individual scientists may be dishonest, the beauty of the Scientific Method, with objective experiments and statistical analysis followed by peer review and repeatability, is that scrupulous honesty is built into it by design. "Science replaces private prejudices with verifiable public evidence." - Richard Dawkins Bullshit again. The nuclear bomb started out as nothing but theoretical physics. We can now launch a ballistic missile to the other side of the planet and blow something up, because we now know exactly how it works. That doesn't mean there won't be more advances in the field of nuclear fusion or fission, but the nuclear bomb is fact now, not theory. It has been proven to work, beyond any shadow of a doubt. |
|
Quoted:
... Quoted:
... to add to that, http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/download/?id=c94cb1b0-747e-4d6b-984a-f27664a23831&download=1 Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming
claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. while AGW represents the current state of climate science, and therefore has to be taken seriously from a scientific perspective, to claim that there is no dissent from within the scientific community is wrong. |
|
Quoted:
Bullshit again. The nuclear bomb started out as nothing but theoretical physics. We can now launch a ballistic missile to the other side of the planet and blow something up, because we now know exactly how it works. That doesn't mean there won't be more advances in the field of nuclear fusion or fission, but the nuclear bomb is fact now, not theory. It has been proven to work, beyond any shadow of a doubt. Quoted:
Quoted:
... Bullshit again. The nuclear bomb started out as nothing but theoretical physics. We can now launch a ballistic missile to the other side of the planet and blow something up, because we now know exactly how it works. That doesn't mean there won't be more advances in the field of nuclear fusion or fission, but the nuclear bomb is fact now, not theory. It has been proven to work, beyond any shadow of a doubt. this may be a dumb question, but you realize that atomic theory is still a theory, right? relativity? still a theory. germs? theory. behavior of gasses? theory. |
|
Quoted:
this may be a dumb question, but you realize that atomic theory is still a theory, right? relativity? still a theory. germs? theory. behavior of gasses? theory. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... Bullshit again. The nuclear bomb started out as nothing but theoretical physics. We can now launch a ballistic missile to the other side of the planet and blow something up, because we now know exactly how it works. That doesn't mean there won't be more advances in the field of nuclear fusion or fission, but the nuclear bomb is fact now, not theory. It has been proven to work, beyond any shadow of a doubt. this may be a dumb question, but you realize that atomic theory is still a theory, right? relativity? still a theory. germs? theory. behavior of gasses? theory. Sure, atomic theory is still theory, and we certainly don't know it all yet, but the nuclear bomb has been proven to work, and so has the nuclear reactor. They are facts now, no longer theoretical. So that is part of science that has been proven as fact, regardless of how you try to dance around it with semantics. |
|
Quoted:
Sure, atomic theory is still theory, and we certainly don't know it all yet, but the nuclear bomb has been proven to work, and so has the nuclear reactor. They are facts now, no longer theoretical. So that is part of science that has been proven as fact, regardless of how you try to dance around it with semantics. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... this may be a dumb question, but you realize that atomic theory is still a theory, right? relativity? still a theory. germs? theory. behavior of gasses? theory. Sure, atomic theory is still theory, and we certainly don't know it all yet, but the nuclear bomb has been proven to work, and so has the nuclear reactor. They are facts now, no longer theoretical. So that is part of science that has been proven as fact, regardless of how you try to dance around it with semantics. it's not semantics, dude--science cannot prove anything. as rodent stated earlier, proof is a logical/mathematical concept. it means that the conclusion cannot possibly be wrong. and you simply cannot do that with empirical reasoning, because you never have all the information. ever. it's a logical fallacy to even try to prove something in science. all you can do is disprove things (because a statement only has to be wrong once to be false). so you can't have it both ways--either science does not prove things, or logic is wrong. which is it? |
|
Quoted:
to add to that, http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/download/?id=c94cb1b0-747e-4d6b-984a-f27664a23831&download=1 while AGW represents the current state of climate science, and therefore has to be taken seriously from a scientific perspective, to claim that there is no dissent from within the scientific community is wrong. Quoted:
Quoted:
... to add to that, http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/download/?id=c94cb1b0-747e-4d6b-984a-f27664a23831&download=1 Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming
claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. while AGW represents the current state of climate science, and therefore has to be taken seriously from a scientific perspective, to claim that there is no dissent from within the scientific community is wrong. Absolutely. And that's why I respect your opinion on this subject, because you are still keeping an open mind, rather than being one of the "believers" like Rodent. I started out as a skeptic, but now I'm pretty much in the "fuck you, you people are all full of shit and just want my money" camp. I now believe that this is what it's really all about: "It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid." -Cass Sunstein, Obama's former head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs In 2007 Sunstein co-authored (with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner) a 39-page University of Chicago Law School paper titled "Climate Change Justice," which held that it was "desirable" for America to pay "justice" to poorer nations by entering into a compensation agreement that would result in a financial loss for the United States. The paper refers several times to "distributive justice." |
|
Quoted:
Bullshit again. The nuclear bomb started out as nothing but theoretical physics. We can now launch a ballistic missile to the other side of the planet and blow something up, because we now know exactly how it works. That doesn't mean there won't be more advances in the field of nuclear fusion or fission, but the nuclear bomb is fact now, not theory. It has been proven to work, beyond any shadow of a doubt. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Overall, consensus isn't science, and peer-review, in of itself, doesn't make a theory a fact. Especially of the peers reviewing a paper have a personal investment in a certain outcome. As I explained above, theories never become fact. They are always potentially malleable with new evidence. If you are curious about how the scientific method works, you could Google it. And while of course individual scientists may be dishonest, the beauty of the Scientific Method, with objective experiments and statistical analysis followed by peer review and repeatability, is that scrupulous honesty is built into it by design. "Science replaces private prejudices with verifiable public evidence." - Richard Dawkins Bullshit again. The nuclear bomb started out as nothing but theoretical physics. We can now launch a ballistic missile to the other side of the planet and blow something up, because we now know exactly how it works. That doesn't mean there won't be more advances in the field of nuclear fusion or fission, but the nuclear bomb is fact now, not theory. It has been proven to work, beyond any shadow of a doubt. And yet, if for some reason we woke up tomorrow and it no longer worked, the theory would be revised to fit the new evidence. If you are really curious about what "theory" and "fact" mean in the scientific sense as opposed to the popular sense, the information is at your fingertips. |
|
Quoted:
it's not semantics, dude--science cannot prove anything. as rodent stated earlier, proof is a logical/mathematical concept. it means that the conclusion cannot possibly be wrong. and you simply cannot do that with empirical reasoning, because you never have all the information. ever. it's a logical fallacy to even try to prove something in science. all you can do is disprove things (because a statement only has to be wrong once to be false). so you can't have it both ways--either science does not prove things, or logic is wrong. which is it? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... this may be a dumb question, but you realize that atomic theory is still a theory, right? relativity? still a theory. germs? theory. behavior of gasses? theory. Sure, atomic theory is still theory, and we certainly don't know it all yet, but the nuclear bomb has been proven to work, and so has the nuclear reactor. They are facts now, no longer theoretical. So that is part of science that has been proven as fact, regardless of how you try to dance around it with semantics. it's not semantics, dude--science cannot prove anything. as rodent stated earlier, proof is a logical/mathematical concept. it means that the conclusion cannot possibly be wrong. and you simply cannot do that with empirical reasoning, because you never have all the information. ever. it's a logical fallacy to even try to prove something in science. all you can do is disprove things (because a statement only has to be wrong once to be false). so you can't have it both ways--either science does not prove things, or logic is wrong. which is it? So when we dropped a nuclear fission bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you don't agree that our fission bomb....which was nothing more than theoretical a few years before.... became a fact? Did we not prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that nuclear fission would work? If you disagree with that, there is really nothing more to say on it. |
|
Quoted:
I started out as a skeptic, but now I'm pretty much in the "fuck you, you people are all full of shit and just want my money" camp. Quoted:
Quoted:
... while AGW represents the current state of climate science, and therefore has to be taken seriously from a scientific perspective, to claim that there is no dissent from within the scientific community is wrong. I started out as a skeptic, but now I'm pretty much in the "fuck you, you people are all full of shit and just want my money" camp. that's actually damn close to where i am. i'm not a climate denier or a climate skeptic or a climate believer. i'm a goddamn climate cynic. 
|
|
Quoted: Sure, atomic theory is still theory, and we certainly don't know it all yet, but the nuclear bomb has been proven to work, and so has the nuclear reactor. They are facts now, no longer theoretical. So that is part of science that has been proven as fact, regardless of how you try to dance around it with semantics. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ... Bullshit again. The nuclear bomb started out as nothing but theoretical physics. We can now launch a ballistic missile to the other side of the planet and blow something up, because we now know exactly how it works. That doesn't mean there won't be more advances in the field of nuclear fusion or fission, but the nuclear bomb is fact now, not theory. It has been proven to work, beyond any shadow of a doubt. this may be a dumb question, but you realize that atomic theory is still a theory, right? relativity? still a theory. germs? theory. behavior of gasses? theory. Sure, atomic theory is still theory, and we certainly don't know it all yet, but the nuclear bomb has been proven to work, and so has the nuclear reactor. They are facts now, no longer theoretical. So that is part of science that has been proven as fact, regardless of how you try to dance around it with semantics. They are approximations that help us make predictions about reality. Just like newtonian physics. They could be ultimately wrong. Just like newtonian physics. |
|
Quoted:
And yet, if for some reason we woke up tomorrow and it no longer worked, the theory would be revised to fit the new evidence. If you are really curious about what "theory" and "fact" mean in the scientific sense as opposed to the popular sense, the information is at your fingertips. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Overall, consensus isn't science, and peer-review, in of itself, doesn't make a theory a fact. Especially of the peers reviewing a paper have a personal investment in a certain outcome. As I explained above, theories never become fact. They are always potentially malleable with new evidence. If you are curious about how the scientific method works, you could Google it. And while of course individual scientists may be dishonest, the beauty of the Scientific Method, with objective experiments and statistical analysis followed by peer review and repeatability, is that scrupulous honesty is built into it by design. "Science replaces private prejudices with verifiable public evidence." - Richard Dawkins Bullshit again. The nuclear bomb started out as nothing but theoretical physics. We can now launch a ballistic missile to the other side of the planet and blow something up, because we now know exactly how it works. That doesn't mean there won't be more advances in the field of nuclear fusion or fission, but the nuclear bomb is fact now, not theory. It has been proven to work, beyond any shadow of a doubt. And yet, if for some reason we woke up tomorrow and it no longer worked, the theory would be revised to fit the new evidence. If you are really curious about what "theory" and "fact" mean in the scientific sense as opposed to the popular sense, the information is at your fingertips. LOL, we have detonated over 1,000 nuclear bombs. It works.  And I don't need to look it up; I am not clueless about the scientific method, as you clearly are, with all of your horseshit about "97% consensus" and "deniers".
|
|
Quoted:
Sure, atomic theory is still theory, and we certainly don't know it all yet, but the nuclear bomb has been proven to work, and so has the nuclear reactor. They are facts now, no longer theoretical. So that is part of science that has been proven as fact, regardless of how you try to dance around it with semantics. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... Bullshit again. The nuclear bomb started out as nothing but theoretical physics. We can now launch a ballistic missile to the other side of the planet and blow something up, because we now know exactly how it works. That doesn't mean there won't be more advances in the field of nuclear fusion or fission, but the nuclear bomb is fact now, not theory. It has been proven to work, beyond any shadow of a doubt. this may be a dumb question, but you realize that atomic theory is still a theory, right? relativity? still a theory. germs? theory. behavior of gasses? theory. Sure, atomic theory is still theory, and we certainly don't know it all yet, but the nuclear bomb has been proven to work, and so has the nuclear reactor. They are facts now, no longer theoretical. So that is part of science that has been proven as fact, regardless of how you try to dance around it with semantics. Here's a hint: Theory has more than one meaning. http://www.notjustatheory.com/ |
|
Quoted: People who create websites like answers in genesis. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Many of the "most articulate critics of neo-darwinism" are liars and frauds who pretend to be things they are not. |