Science, And What Science Isn't

[Flopper]

There is a tongue-in-cheek reference to what science is, and what it isn't.
The term used is "SWAG."

It means a 'scientific wild ass guess."
It's meant to poke fun at folks who believe 'scientific' facts that are based on a confident and unquestioning belief,...sometimes called 'faith.'



Here's some examples of SWAG....

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.


What do these have in common?
All of 'em are of the modern fashion called 'science.'

But none of 'em are scientific....yet they are drooled over, praised,...accepted by the many infected with sciolism,
"Sciolism: A pretentious attitude of scholarship; superficial knowledgeability." sciolism - definition of sciolism by The Free Dictionary


Another word that applies to those willing to accept the absurd and call it knowledge.....'sophomoric: intellectually pretentious and conceited but immature and ill-informed."





1. Such wasn't always the overlay in socieity.....On Wednesday, June 6, 1928 the Oxford English Dictionary was completed.

In The Meaning of Everything, a book about the creation of the OED,Simon Winchester discusses the English of the time as follows:

“The English establishment of the day might be rightly derided at this remove as having been class-ridden and imperialist, bombastic and blimpish, racist and insouciant- but it was marked undeniably also by a sweeping erudition and confidence, and it was peopled by men and women who felt they were able to know all, to understand much, and in consequence to radiate the wisdom of deep learning.”


Today we may have given up being racist and imperialist, and class-ridden....but much of our populace has also given up the sense that we are 'able to know all, to understand much, and in consequence to radiate the wisdom of deep learning.'


They accept the absurd and call themselves wise.
SWAG is now accepted as 'science' by the sophomoric, afflicted with sciolism.

The term SWAG is believed to have first been used by US Army General Westmoreland during the Vietnam War in response to reporters' questions about American failures. In Scientific and Engineering circles, the term is an estimate made by an expert in the field based on experience and intuition.

What many seem to ignore is that SWAG is the seed that theories grow out of. It is often a first step toward a real scientific theory. The public as well as some scientists will jump the gun by referring to some SWAG as theory. However, they are using the word theory in the colloquial sense; that is an idea.

 

[Flopper]

Another example would be the Oort Cloud. We have these things called comets, which by the empirical evidence, suggest they wouldn't last much more than a few hundred thousand years. Yet they are still here.

That makes the "universe is billions of years old" theory in trouble.

So they just made up the magical mythic, zero evidence, Oort Cloud. No one has seen it. No one has detected it. But it must exist, because the universe must be billions of years old, and something has to spawn these short lived comets.

The Ort Cloud is a theoretical construct used to resolve a paradox. There are many such constructs. They are just explanations without observable evidence. Most constructs get shot down. Those that don't, tentatively become accepted as scientific theory. If a construct creates other paradoxes or clashes with observable evidence then it's dropped and science searches for another explanation.

I think people look to science to provide just absolutes. In applied science, that's certainly reasonable but not in theoretical research. In theoretical research, we're looking for some construct that provides an explanation without creating a paradox. Scientists who engaged in empirical research will provide verification or contradiction through experiments and observations.

 

[edthecynic]

When the Large Hadron Collider at CERN Laboratory in Geneva closed down for upgrades in early 2013, its collisions had failed to yield any of dozens of particles that many theorists had included in their equations for more than 30 years.

The Higgs Boson was discovered on the 4th of July 2012

"When the Large Hadron Collider at CERN Laboratory in Geneva closed down for upgrades in early 2013, its collisions had failed to yield any of dozens of particles that many theorists had included in their equations for more than 30 years.

Rumor has it in the search for your brain, all they found was an IOU.

You posted the same BS 3 times that was disproved in 2012.

Rumor has it that when God handed out brains, you thought he said "trains" and told him you'd catch the next one.

 

[edthecynic]

Another example would be the Oort Cloud. We have these things called comets, which by the empirical evidence, suggest they wouldn't last much more than a few hundred thousand years. Yet they are still here.

That makes the "universe is billions of years old" theory in trouble.

So they just made up the magical mythic, zero evidence, Oort Cloud. No one has seen it. No one has detected it. But it must exist, because the universe must be billions of years old, and something has to spawn these short lived comets.

Mysterious and Well-Preserved Oort Cloud Object Heading Into Our Solar System

Imagine what astronomers could learn about the early Solar System by sending a probe to the Oort cloud! Unfortunately 1-2 light years is more than a little beyond our reach. But we’re not entirely out of luck. 2010 WG9 – a trans-Neptunian object — is actually an Oort Cloud object in disguise. It has been kicked out of its orbit, and is heading closer towards us so we can get an unprecedented look.

But it gets even better! 2010 WG9 won’t get close to the Sun, meaning that its icy surface will remain well-preserved. Dr. David Rabinowitz, lead author of a paper about the ongoing observations of this object told Universe Today, “This is one of the Holy Grails of Planetary Science – to observe an unaltered planetesimal left over from the time of Solar System formation.”


Now you might be thinking: wait, don’t comets come from the Oort Cloud? It’s true; most comets were pulled out of the Oort cloud by a gravitational disturbance. But observing comets is extremely difficult, as they are surrounded by bright clouds of dust and gas. They also come much closer to the Sun, meaning that their ices evaporate and their original surface is not preserved.

So while there is a surprisingly high number of Oort cloud objects hanging out within the inner solar system, we needed to find one that is easy to observe and whose surface is well preserved. 2010 WG9 is just the object for the job! It is not covered by dust or gas, and is believed to have spent most of its lifetime at distances greater than 1000 AU. In fact, it will never approach closer than Uranus.

Solar System Exploration Planets Kuiper Belt Oort Cloud Read More

The Kuiper Belt extends from about 30 to 55 AU and is probably populated with hundreds of thousands of icy bodies larger than 100 km (62 miles) across and an estimated trillion or more comets.

The discovery of Eris -- which is similar
in size to Pluto -- caused scientists to
reconsider the definition of a planet.

In 1992, astronomers detected a faint speck of light from an object about 42 AU from the sun -- the first time a Kuiper Belt object (or KBO for short) had been sighted. More than 1,300 KBOs have been identified since 1992. (They are sometimes called Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt objects, and they are sometimes called transneptunian objects or TNOs for short.)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another example would be the Oort Cloud. We have these things called comets, which by the empirical evidence, suggest they wouldn't last much more than a few hundred thousand years. Yet they are still here.

That makes the "universe is billions of years old" theory in trouble.

So they just made up the magical mythic, zero evidence, Oort Cloud. No one has seen it. No one has detected it. But it must exist, because the universe must be billions of years old, and something has to spawn these short lived comets.

The Ort Cloud is a theoretical construct used to resolve a paradox. There are many such constructs. They are just explanations without observable evidence. Most constructs get shot down. Those that don't, tentatively become accepted as scientific theory. If a construct creates other paradoxes or clashes with observable evidence then it's dropped and science searches for another explanation.

I think people look to science to provide just absolutes. In applied science, that's certainly reasonable but not in theoretical research. In theoretical research, we're looking for some construct that provides an explanation without creating a paradox. Scientists who engaged in empirical research will provide verification or contradiction through experiments and observations.

"Science is not about "consensus" but facts. Not only were some physicists not initially convinced by Einstein's theory of relativity, Einstein himself said that it should not be accepted until empirical evidence could test it.

That test came during an eclipse, when light behaved as Einstein said it would, rather than the way it should have behaved if the existing "consensus" was correct.

That is how scientific questions should be settled, not by political intimidation. There is already plenty of political weight on the scales, on the side of those pushing the "global warming" scenario."
The New Inquisition - Thomas Sowell - Page full

 

[PoliticalChic]

. What is the nature of science? Surely not a discipline constructed from guesses and assumption, computer models and made up statistics. In 1665, Robert Hooke recorded in his revolutionary thesis “Micrographia” that ‘The truth is, the Source of Nature has been already too long made only a Work of the Brain and the Fancy: it is now high time that it should return to the plainness and soundness of observations on material and obvious things.”

 

[Flopper]

Another example would be the Oort Cloud. We have these things called comets, which by the empirical evidence, suggest they wouldn't last much more than a few hundred thousand years. Yet they are still here.

That makes the "universe is billions of years old" theory in trouble.

So they just made up the magical mythic, zero evidence, Oort Cloud. No one has seen it. No one has detected it. But it must exist, because the universe must be billions of years old, and something has to spawn these short lived comets.

The Ort Cloud is a theoretical construct used to resolve a paradox. There are many such constructs. They are just explanations without observable evidence. Most constructs get shot down. Those that don't, tentatively become accepted as scientific theory. If a construct creates other paradoxes or clashes with observable evidence then it's dropped and science searches for another explanation.

I think people look to science to provide just absolutes. In applied science, that's certainly reasonable but not in theoretical research. In theoretical research, we're looking for some construct that provides an explanation without creating a paradox. Scientists who engaged in empirical research will provide verification or contradiction through experiments and observations.

"Science is not about "consensus" but facts. Not only were some physicists not initially convinced by Einstein's theory of relativity, Einstein himself said that it should not be accepted until empirical evidence could test it.

That test came during an eclipse, when light behaved as Einstein said it would, rather than the way it should have behaved if the existing "consensus" was correct.

That is how scientific questions should be settled, not by political intimidation. There is already plenty of political weight on the scales, on the side of those pushing the "global warming" scenario."
The New Inquisition - Thomas Sowell - Page full

When you're doing theoretical research, you are working with existing accepted scientific theories and a new hypothesis. There is usually little empirical evidence at this stage to support the hypotheses. Consensus with peers is essential to the viability of the new hypothesis and to moving on to gathering empirical evidence to support the hypotheses.

Once there is sufficient evidence, the real work begins, convincing peers, many of which may hold opposing opinions that this new hypothesis backed by the empirical evidence actually explains the phenomenon. This process of reaching consensus with peers can go on for years are even decades. Opposition will want more evidence and often competing hypothesis will emerge. Most hypothesis never become a new accepted theory.

Peer review and consensus is an essential part of science because the layman simply doesn't have the knowledge to evaluate scientific research. This must be done by peers. It is only through the consensus of those peers that we can have any confidence as to the validity of the new theory.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another example would be the Oort Cloud. We have these things called comets, which by the empirical evidence, suggest they wouldn't last much more than a few hundred thousand years. Yet they are still here.

That makes the "universe is billions of years old" theory in trouble.

So they just made up the magical mythic, zero evidence, Oort Cloud. No one has seen it. No one has detected it. But it must exist, because the universe must be billions of years old, and something has to spawn these short lived comets.

The Ort Cloud is a theoretical construct used to resolve a paradox. There are many such constructs. They are just explanations without observable evidence. Most constructs get shot down. Those that don't, tentatively become accepted as scientific theory. If a construct creates other paradoxes or clashes with observable evidence then it's dropped and science searches for another explanation.

I think people look to science to provide just absolutes. In applied science, that's certainly reasonable but not in theoretical research. In theoretical research, we're looking for some construct that provides an explanation without creating a paradox. Scientists who engaged in empirical research will provide verification or contradiction through experiments and observations.

"Science is not about "consensus" but facts. Not only were some physicists not initially convinced by Einstein's theory of relativity, Einstein himself said that it should not be accepted until empirical evidence could test it.

That test came during an eclipse, when light behaved as Einstein said it would, rather than the way it should have behaved if the existing "consensus" was correct.

That is how scientific questions should be settled, not by political intimidation. There is already plenty of political weight on the scales, on the side of those pushing the "global warming" scenario."
The New Inquisition - Thomas Sowell - Page full

When you're doing theoretical research, you are working with existing accepted scientific theories and a new hypothesis. There is usually little empirical evidence at this stage to support the hypotheses. Consensus with peers is essential to the viability of the new hypothesis and to moving on to gathering empirical evidence to support the hypotheses.

Once there is sufficient evidence, the real work begins, convincing peers, many of which may hold opposing opinions that this new hypothesis backed by the empirical evidence actually explains the phenomenon. This process of reaching consensus with peers can go on for years are even decades. Opposition will want more evidence and often competing hypothesis will emerge. Most hypothesis never become a new accepted theory.

Peer review and consensus is an essential part of science because the layman simply doesn't have the knowledge to evaluate scientific research. This must be done by peers. It is only through the consensus of those peers that we can have any confidence as to the validity of the new theory.

You couldn't be more wrong.
You could try...but you wouldn't succeed.

a. Multiverse theory is a case in point....it originated in order to hide the fact that conditions for life on our planet are just too darn coincidental to be random. The fundamentalist atheists had to find a way to explain same, so came up with the absurdity that there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of laws of physics.
Did I happen to mention that I can spin straw into gold?
" …some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles….If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
Article written by a physicist.



b. Peer review is bogus as well. Where there is funding and/or career status at stake....well, scientist are simply human beings, too.

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’"
Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles smashes peer review ring - The Washington Post



In short....don't be afraid to use your head in the future: if an idea is simply absurd...don't be afraid to say so.

 

[Flopper]

Another example would be the Oort Cloud. We have these things called comets, which by the empirical evidence, suggest they wouldn't last much more than a few hundred thousand years. Yet they are still here.

That makes the "universe is billions of years old" theory in trouble.

So they just made up the magical mythic, zero evidence, Oort Cloud. No one has seen it. No one has detected it. But it must exist, because the universe must be billions of years old, and something has to spawn these short lived comets.

The Ort Cloud is a theoretical construct used to resolve a paradox. There are many such constructs. They are just explanations without observable evidence. Most constructs get shot down. Those that don't, tentatively become accepted as scientific theory. If a construct creates other paradoxes or clashes with observable evidence then it's dropped and science searches for another explanation.

I think people look to science to provide just absolutes. In applied science, that's certainly reasonable but not in theoretical research. In theoretical research, we're looking for some construct that provides an explanation without creating a paradox. Scientists who engaged in empirical research will provide verification or contradiction through experiments and observations.

"Science is not about "consensus" but facts. Not only were some physicists not initially convinced by Einstein's theory of relativity, Einstein himself said that it should not be accepted until empirical evidence could test it.

That test came during an eclipse, when light behaved as Einstein said it would, rather than the way it should have behaved if the existing "consensus" was correct.

That is how scientific questions should be settled, not by political intimidation. There is already plenty of political weight on the scales, on the side of those pushing the "global warming" scenario."
The New Inquisition - Thomas Sowell - Page full

When you're doing theoretical research, you are working with existing accepted scientific theories and a new hypothesis. There is usually little empirical evidence at this stage to support the hypotheses. Consensus with peers is essential to the viability of the new hypothesis and to moving on to gathering empirical evidence to support the hypotheses.

Once there is sufficient evidence, the real work begins, convincing peers, many of which may hold opposing opinions that this new hypothesis backed by the empirical evidence actually explains the phenomenon. This process of reaching consensus with peers can go on for years are even decades. Opposition will want more evidence and often competing hypothesis will emerge. Most hypothesis never become a new accepted theory.

Peer review and consensus is an essential part of science because the layman simply doesn't have the knowledge to evaluate scientific research. This must be done by peers. It is only through the consensus of those peers that we can have any confidence as to the validity of the new theory.

You couldn't be more wrong.
You could try...but you wouldn't succeed.

a. Multiverse theory is a case in point....it originated in order to hide the fact that conditions for life on our planet are just too darn coincidental to be random. The fundamentalist atheists had to find a way to explain same, so came up with the absurdity that there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of laws of physics.
Did I happen to mention that I can spin straw into gold?
" …some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles….If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
Article written by a physicist.



b. Peer review is bogus as well. Where there is funding and/or career status at stake....well, scientist are simply human beings, too.

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’"
Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles smashes peer review ring - The Washington Post



In short....don't be afraid to use your head in the future: if an idea is simply absurd...don't be afraid to say so.

Another example would be the Oort Cloud. We have these things called comets, which by the empirical evidence, suggest they wouldn't last much more than a few hundred thousand years. Yet they are still here.

That makes the "universe is billions of years old" theory in trouble.

So they just made up the magical mythic, zero evidence, Oort Cloud. No one has seen it. No one has detected it. But it must exist, because the universe must be billions of years old, and something has to spawn these short lived comets.

The Ort Cloud is a theoretical construct used to resolve a paradox. There are many such constructs. They are just explanations without observable evidence. Most constructs get shot down. Those that don't, tentatively become accepted as scientific theory. If a construct creates other paradoxes or clashes with observable evidence then it's dropped and science searches for another explanation.

I think people look to science to provide just absolutes. In applied science, that's certainly reasonable but not in theoretical research. In theoretical research, we're looking for some construct that provides an explanation without creating a paradox. Scientists who engaged in empirical research will provide verification or contradiction through experiments and observations.

"Science is not about "consensus" but facts. Not only were some physicists not initially convinced by Einstein's theory of relativity, Einstein himself said that it should not be accepted until empirical evidence could test it.

That test came during an eclipse, when light behaved as Einstein said it would, rather than the way it should have behaved if the existing "consensus" was correct.

That is how scientific questions should be settled, not by political intimidation. There is already plenty of political weight on the scales, on the side of those pushing the "global warming" scenario."
The New Inquisition - Thomas Sowell - Page full

When you're doing theoretical research, you are working with existing accepted scientific theories and a new hypothesis. There is usually little empirical evidence at this stage to support the hypotheses. Consensus with peers is essential to the viability of the new hypothesis and to moving on to gathering empirical evidence to support the hypotheses.

Once there is sufficient evidence, the real work begins, convincing peers, many of which may hold opposing opinions that this new hypothesis backed by the empirical evidence actually explains the phenomenon. This process of reaching consensus with peers can go on for years are even decades. Opposition will want more evidence and often competing hypothesis will emerge. Most hypothesis never become a new accepted theory.

Peer review and consensus is an essential part of science because the layman simply doesn't have the knowledge to evaluate scientific research. This must be done by peers. It is only through the consensus of those peers that we can have any confidence as to the validity of the new theory.

You couldn't be more wrong.
You could try...but you wouldn't succeed.

a. Multiverse theory is a case in point....it originated in order to hide the fact that conditions for life on our planet are just too darn coincidental to be random. The fundamentalist atheists had to find a way to explain same, so came up with the absurdity that there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of laws of physics.
Did I happen to mention that I can spin straw into gold?
" …some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles….If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
Article written by a physicist.



b. Peer review is bogus as well. Where there is funding and/or career status at stake....well, scientist are simply human beings, too.

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’"
Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles smashes peer review ring - The Washington Post



In short....don't be afraid to use your head in the future: if an idea is simply absurd...don't be afraid to say so.

If you're suggesting that peer review be replaced by laymen review, that is truly absurd.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another example would be the Oort Cloud. We have these things called comets, which by the empirical evidence, suggest they wouldn't last much more than a few hundred thousand years. Yet they are still here.

That makes the "universe is billions of years old" theory in trouble.

So they just made up the magical mythic, zero evidence, Oort Cloud. No one has seen it. No one has detected it. But it must exist, because the universe must be billions of years old, and something has to spawn these short lived comets.

The Ort Cloud is a theoretical construct used to resolve a paradox. There are many such constructs. They are just explanations without observable evidence. Most constructs get shot down. Those that don't, tentatively become accepted as scientific theory. If a construct creates other paradoxes or clashes with observable evidence then it's dropped and science searches for another explanation.

I think people look to science to provide just absolutes. In applied science, that's certainly reasonable but not in theoretical research. In theoretical research, we're looking for some construct that provides an explanation without creating a paradox. Scientists who engaged in empirical research will provide verification or contradiction through experiments and observations.

"Science is not about "consensus" but facts. Not only were some physicists not initially convinced by Einstein's theory of relativity, Einstein himself said that it should not be accepted until empirical evidence could test it.

That test came during an eclipse, when light behaved as Einstein said it would, rather than the way it should have behaved if the existing "consensus" was correct.

That is how scientific questions should be settled, not by political intimidation. There is already plenty of political weight on the scales, on the side of those pushing the "global warming" scenario."
The New Inquisition - Thomas Sowell - Page full

When you're doing theoretical research, you are working with existing accepted scientific theories and a new hypothesis. There is usually little empirical evidence at this stage to support the hypotheses. Consensus with peers is essential to the viability of the new hypothesis and to moving on to gathering empirical evidence to support the hypotheses.

Once there is sufficient evidence, the real work begins, convincing peers, many of which may hold opposing opinions that this new hypothesis backed by the empirical evidence actually explains the phenomenon. This process of reaching consensus with peers can go on for years are even decades. Opposition will want more evidence and often competing hypothesis will emerge. Most hypothesis never become a new accepted theory.

Peer review and consensus is an essential part of science because the layman simply doesn't have the knowledge to evaluate scientific research. This must be done by peers. It is only through the consensus of those peers that we can have any confidence as to the validity of the new theory.

You couldn't be more wrong.
You could try...but you wouldn't succeed.

a. Multiverse theory is a case in point....it originated in order to hide the fact that conditions for life on our planet are just too darn coincidental to be random. The fundamentalist atheists had to find a way to explain same, so came up with the absurdity that there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of laws of physics.
Did I happen to mention that I can spin straw into gold?
" …some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles….If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
Article written by a physicist.



b. Peer review is bogus as well. Where there is funding and/or career status at stake....well, scientist are simply human beings, too.

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’"
Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles smashes peer review ring - The Washington Post



In short....don't be afraid to use your head in the future: if an idea is simply absurd...don't be afraid to say so.

Another example would be the Oort Cloud. We have these things called comets, which by the empirical evidence, suggest they wouldn't last much more than a few hundred thousand years. Yet they are still here.

That makes the "universe is billions of years old" theory in trouble.

So they just made up the magical mythic, zero evidence, Oort Cloud. No one has seen it. No one has detected it. But it must exist, because the universe must be billions of years old, and something has to spawn these short lived comets.

The Ort Cloud is a theoretical construct used to resolve a paradox. There are many such constructs. They are just explanations without observable evidence. Most constructs get shot down. Those that don't, tentatively become accepted as scientific theory. If a construct creates other paradoxes or clashes with observable evidence then it's dropped and science searches for another explanation.

I think people look to science to provide just absolutes. In applied science, that's certainly reasonable but not in theoretical research. In theoretical research, we're looking for some construct that provides an explanation without creating a paradox. Scientists who engaged in empirical research will provide verification or contradiction through experiments and observations.

"Science is not about "consensus" but facts. Not only were some physicists not initially convinced by Einstein's theory of relativity, Einstein himself said that it should not be accepted until empirical evidence could test it.

That test came during an eclipse, when light behaved as Einstein said it would, rather than the way it should have behaved if the existing "consensus" was correct.

That is how scientific questions should be settled, not by political intimidation. There is already plenty of political weight on the scales, on the side of those pushing the "global warming" scenario."
The New Inquisition - Thomas Sowell - Page full

When you're doing theoretical research, you are working with existing accepted scientific theories and a new hypothesis. There is usually little empirical evidence at this stage to support the hypotheses. Consensus with peers is essential to the viability of the new hypothesis and to moving on to gathering empirical evidence to support the hypotheses.

Once there is sufficient evidence, the real work begins, convincing peers, many of which may hold opposing opinions that this new hypothesis backed by the empirical evidence actually explains the phenomenon. This process of reaching consensus with peers can go on for years are even decades. Opposition will want more evidence and often competing hypothesis will emerge. Most hypothesis never become a new accepted theory.

Peer review and consensus is an essential part of science because the layman simply doesn't have the knowledge to evaluate scientific research. This must be done by peers. It is only through the consensus of those peers that we can have any confidence as to the validity of the new theory.

You couldn't be more wrong.
You could try...but you wouldn't succeed.

a. Multiverse theory is a case in point....it originated in order to hide the fact that conditions for life on our planet are just too darn coincidental to be random. The fundamentalist atheists had to find a way to explain same, so came up with the absurdity that there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of laws of physics.
Did I happen to mention that I can spin straw into gold?
" …some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles….If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
Article written by a physicist.



b. Peer review is bogus as well. Where there is funding and/or career status at stake....well, scientist are simply human beings, too.

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’"
Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles smashes peer review ring - The Washington Post



In short....don't be afraid to use your head in the future: if an idea is simply absurd...don't be afraid to say so.

If you're suggesting that peer review be replaced by laymen review, that is truly absurd.

I said no such thing....which leads me to believe my post hit a nerve.

 

[MaryL]

SWAG? Gimme a break. Scientific speculation gave us polio vaccines, computers and airplanes. What has Religious/philosophical speculation given us but delusional security and misery? I will take scientific quarries or guesses over religious hysterical mumbo jumbo any day of the week. Swag...really?

 

[Flopper]

The Ort Cloud is a theoretical construct used to resolve a paradox. There are many such constructs. They are just explanations without observable evidence. Most constructs get shot down. Those that don't, tentatively become accepted as scientific theory. If a construct creates other paradoxes or clashes with observable evidence then it's dropped and science searches for another explanation.

I think people look to science to provide just absolutes. In applied science, that's certainly reasonable but not in theoretical research. In theoretical research, we're looking for some construct that provides an explanation without creating a paradox. Scientists who engaged in empirical research will provide verification or contradiction through experiments and observations.

"Science is not about "consensus" but facts. Not only were some physicists not initially convinced by Einstein's theory of relativity, Einstein himself said that it should not be accepted until empirical evidence could test it.

That test came during an eclipse, when light behaved as Einstein said it would, rather than the way it should have behaved if the existing "consensus" was correct.

That is how scientific questions should be settled, not by political intimidation. There is already plenty of political weight on the scales, on the side of those pushing the "global warming" scenario."
The New Inquisition - Thomas Sowell - Page full

When you're doing theoretical research, you are working with existing accepted scientific theories and a new hypothesis. There is usually little empirical evidence at this stage to support the hypotheses. Consensus with peers is essential to the viability of the new hypothesis and to moving on to gathering empirical evidence to support the hypotheses.

Once there is sufficient evidence, the real work begins, convincing peers, many of which may hold opposing opinions that this new hypothesis backed by the empirical evidence actually explains the phenomenon. This process of reaching consensus with peers can go on for years are even decades. Opposition will want more evidence and often competing hypothesis will emerge. Most hypothesis never become a new accepted theory.

Peer review and consensus is an essential part of science because the layman simply doesn't have the knowledge to evaluate scientific research. This must be done by peers. It is only through the consensus of those peers that we can have any confidence as to the validity of the new theory.

You couldn't be more wrong.
You could try...but you wouldn't succeed.

a. Multiverse theory is a case in point....it originated in order to hide the fact that conditions for life on our planet are just too darn coincidental to be random. The fundamentalist atheists had to find a way to explain same, so came up with the absurdity that there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of laws of physics.
Did I happen to mention that I can spin straw into gold?
" …some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles….If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
Article written by a physicist.



b. Peer review is bogus as well. Where there is funding and/or career status at stake....well, scientist are simply human beings, too.

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’"
Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles smashes peer review ring - The Washington Post



In short....don't be afraid to use your head in the future: if an idea is simply absurd...don't be afraid to say so.

The Ort Cloud is a theoretical construct used to resolve a paradox. There are many such constructs. They are just explanations without observable evidence. Most constructs get shot down. Those that don't, tentatively become accepted as scientific theory. If a construct creates other paradoxes or clashes with observable evidence then it's dropped and science searches for another explanation.

I think people look to science to provide just absolutes. In applied science, that's certainly reasonable but not in theoretical research. In theoretical research, we're looking for some construct that provides an explanation without creating a paradox. Scientists who engaged in empirical research will provide verification or contradiction through experiments and observations.

"Science is not about "consensus" but facts. Not only were some physicists not initially convinced by Einstein's theory of relativity, Einstein himself said that it should not be accepted until empirical evidence could test it.

That test came during an eclipse, when light behaved as Einstein said it would, rather than the way it should have behaved if the existing "consensus" was correct.

That is how scientific questions should be settled, not by political intimidation. There is already plenty of political weight on the scales, on the side of those pushing the "global warming" scenario."
The New Inquisition - Thomas Sowell - Page full

When you're doing theoretical research, you are working with existing accepted scientific theories and a new hypothesis. There is usually little empirical evidence at this stage to support the hypotheses. Consensus with peers is essential to the viability of the new hypothesis and to moving on to gathering empirical evidence to support the hypotheses.

Once there is sufficient evidence, the real work begins, convincing peers, many of which may hold opposing opinions that this new hypothesis backed by the empirical evidence actually explains the phenomenon. This process of reaching consensus with peers can go on for years are even decades. Opposition will want more evidence and often competing hypothesis will emerge. Most hypothesis never become a new accepted theory.

Peer review and consensus is an essential part of science because the layman simply doesn't have the knowledge to evaluate scientific research. This must be done by peers. It is only through the consensus of those peers that we can have any confidence as to the validity of the new theory.

You couldn't be more wrong.
You could try...but you wouldn't succeed.

a. Multiverse theory is a case in point....it originated in order to hide the fact that conditions for life on our planet are just too darn coincidental to be random. The fundamentalist atheists had to find a way to explain same, so came up with the absurdity that there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of laws of physics.
Did I happen to mention that I can spin straw into gold?
" …some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles….If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
Article written by a physicist.



b. Peer review is bogus as well. Where there is funding and/or career status at stake....well, scientist are simply human beings, too.

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’"
Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles smashes peer review ring - The Washington Post



In short....don't be afraid to use your head in the future: if an idea is simply absurd...don't be afraid to say so.

If you're suggesting that peer review be replaced by laymen review, that is truly absurd.

I said no such thing....which leads me to believe my post hit a nerve.

If as you said, "Peer review is bogus as well", then what is the alternative?

 

[PoliticalChic]

SWAG? Gimme a break. Scientific speculation gave us polio vaccines, computers and airplanes. What has Religious/philosophical speculation given us but delusional security and misery? I will take scientific quarries or guesses over religious hysterical mumbo jumbo any day of the week. Swag...really?

Have someone with a brain read the thread to you.

The examples I've given are of the religious version of 'science.'

Nonsense like the multiverse theory is "religious hysterical mumbo jumbo,"...and you are a dope.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Science is not about "consensus" but facts. Not only were some physicists not initially convinced by Einstein's theory of relativity, Einstein himself said that it should not be accepted until empirical evidence could test it.

That test came during an eclipse, when light behaved as Einstein said it would, rather than the way it should have behaved if the existing "consensus" was correct.

That is how scientific questions should be settled, not by political intimidation. There is already plenty of political weight on the scales, on the side of those pushing the "global warming" scenario."
The New Inquisition - Thomas Sowell - Page full

When you're doing theoretical research, you are working with existing accepted scientific theories and a new hypothesis. There is usually little empirical evidence at this stage to support the hypotheses. Consensus with peers is essential to the viability of the new hypothesis and to moving on to gathering empirical evidence to support the hypotheses.

Once there is sufficient evidence, the real work begins, convincing peers, many of which may hold opposing opinions that this new hypothesis backed by the empirical evidence actually explains the phenomenon. This process of reaching consensus with peers can go on for years are even decades. Opposition will want more evidence and often competing hypothesis will emerge. Most hypothesis never become a new accepted theory.

Peer review and consensus is an essential part of science because the layman simply doesn't have the knowledge to evaluate scientific research. This must be done by peers. It is only through the consensus of those peers that we can have any confidence as to the validity of the new theory.

You couldn't be more wrong.
You could try...but you wouldn't succeed.

a. Multiverse theory is a case in point....it originated in order to hide the fact that conditions for life on our planet are just too darn coincidental to be random. The fundamentalist atheists had to find a way to explain same, so came up with the absurdity that there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of laws of physics.
Did I happen to mention that I can spin straw into gold?
" …some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles….If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
Article written by a physicist.



b. Peer review is bogus as well. Where there is funding and/or career status at stake....well, scientist are simply human beings, too.

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’"
Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles smashes peer review ring - The Washington Post



In short....don't be afraid to use your head in the future: if an idea is simply absurd...don't be afraid to say so.

"Science is not about "consensus" but facts. Not only were some physicists not initially convinced by Einstein's theory of relativity, Einstein himself said that it should not be accepted until empirical evidence could test it.

That test came during an eclipse, when light behaved as Einstein said it would, rather than the way it should have behaved if the existing "consensus" was correct.

That is how scientific questions should be settled, not by political intimidation. There is already plenty of political weight on the scales, on the side of those pushing the "global warming" scenario."
The New Inquisition - Thomas Sowell - Page full

When you're doing theoretical research, you are working with existing accepted scientific theories and a new hypothesis. There is usually little empirical evidence at this stage to support the hypotheses. Consensus with peers is essential to the viability of the new hypothesis and to moving on to gathering empirical evidence to support the hypotheses.

Once there is sufficient evidence, the real work begins, convincing peers, many of which may hold opposing opinions that this new hypothesis backed by the empirical evidence actually explains the phenomenon. This process of reaching consensus with peers can go on for years are even decades. Opposition will want more evidence and often competing hypothesis will emerge. Most hypothesis never become a new accepted theory.

Peer review and consensus is an essential part of science because the layman simply doesn't have the knowledge to evaluate scientific research. This must be done by peers. It is only through the consensus of those peers that we can have any confidence as to the validity of the new theory.

You couldn't be more wrong.
You could try...but you wouldn't succeed.

a. Multiverse theory is a case in point....it originated in order to hide the fact that conditions for life on our planet are just too darn coincidental to be random. The fundamentalist atheists had to find a way to explain same, so came up with the absurdity that there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of laws of physics.
Did I happen to mention that I can spin straw into gold?
" …some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles….If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
Article written by a physicist.



b. Peer review is bogus as well. Where there is funding and/or career status at stake....well, scientist are simply human beings, too.

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’"
Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles smashes peer review ring - The Washington Post



In short....don't be afraid to use your head in the future: if an idea is simply absurd...don't be afraid to say so.

If you're suggesting that peer review be replaced by laymen review, that is truly absurd.

I said no such thing....which leads me to believe my post hit a nerve.

If as you said, "Peer review is bogus as well", then what is the alternative?

I'll await your explanation for why you support the multiverse theory before we go on to other topics.

 

[MaryL]

The internal combustion engine, Computers, the internet, scientific mumbo jumbo. But they work. Some wisenheimer even came up with splitting atoms, or rockets. Somehow, all those scientific hunches worked because they were true. The catholic church punished some scientific minds for not conforming and stating contrary opinions. String theory, multi universes, what else should we believe? Sharia law, inflexible hoodoo and stone people to death if they don't conform?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The internal combustion engine, Computers, the internet, scientific mumbo jumbo. But they work. Some wisenheimer even came up with splitting atoms, or rockets. Somehow, all those scientific hunches worked because they were true. The catholic church punished some scientific minds for not conforming and stating contrary opinions. String theory, multi universes, what else should we believe? Sharia law, inflexible hoodoo and stone people to death if they don't conform?

Here's a plan: I'll be responsible for what I actually post....not everything you can imagine being posted.

SWAG:

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.

 

[westwall]

There is a tongue-in-cheek reference to what science is, and what it isn't.
The term used is "SWAG."

It means a 'scientific wild ass guess."
It's meant to poke fun at folks who believe 'scientific' facts that are based on a confident and unquestioning belief,...sometimes called 'faith.'



Here's some examples of SWAG....

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.


What do these have in common?
All of 'em are of the modern fashion called 'science.'

But none of 'em are scientific....yet they are drooled over, praised,...accepted by the many infected with sciolism,
"Sciolism: A pretentious attitude of scholarship; superficial knowledgeability." sciolism - definition of sciolism by The Free Dictionary


Another word that applies to those willing to accept the absurd and call it knowledge.....'sophomoric: intellectually pretentious and conceited but immature and ill-informed."





1. Such wasn't always the overlay in socieity.....On Wednesday, June 6, 1928 the Oxford English Dictionary was completed.

In The Meaning of Everything, a book about the creation of the OED,Simon Winchester discusses the English of the time as follows:

“The English establishment of the day might be rightly derided at this remove as having been class-ridden and imperialist, bombastic and blimpish, racist and insouciant- but it was marked undeniably also by a sweeping erudition and confidence, and it was peopled by men and women who felt they were able to know all, to understand much, and in consequence to radiate the wisdom of deep learning.”


Today we may have given up being racist and imperialist, and class-ridden....but much of our populace has also given up the sense that we are 'able to know all, to understand much, and in consequence to radiate the wisdom of deep learning.'


They accept the absurd and call themselves wise.
SWAG is now accepted as 'science' by the sophomoric, afflicted with sciolism.

Weeeeeelllllll, yes, and no. The problem is you are using a very broad brush to paint with. There are two schools of science, practical and theoretical. Calculus was, once upon a time, theoretical math because it had no purpose until they figured out it could be used for orbital mechanics.

Most science starts out theoretical and then morphs into practical applications. Some, like cosmology will probably exist as purely theoretical endeavors for the next thousand years or so, but quantum mechanics and the frame work of string and membrane theory will probably find applications within the next few years.

 

[westwall]

What galls me is when I hear the term "settled science" from our own President and his legions of brain dead Obamabots.

History is packed full of top scientists of their day publicly announcing that certain inventions and ideas were impossible.

Only later to be mocked in history books as fools when proven wrong. ......

Global warming?

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."

All empirical evidence has come out AGAINST the theory of anthropogenic global warming. The people pushing it now are guilty of fraud.

 

[MaryL]

The internal combustion engine, Computers, the internet, scientific mumbo jumbo. But they work. Some wisenheimer even came up with splitting atoms, or rockets. Somehow, all those scientific hunches worked because they were true. The catholic church punished some scientific minds for not conforming and stating contrary opinions. String theory, multi universes, what else should we believe? Sharia law, inflexible hoodoo and stone people to death if they don't conform?

Here's a plan: I'll be responsible for what I actually post....not everything you can imagine being posted.

SWAG:

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.

Who made GOD? Both silly unanswerable questions. I will take the side of science. And facts. not Dogma and guesswork. But we all die in the end, and what happens after THAT, science is a pathetic second place to religion. But I doubt man made religion has a clue to the soul and the afterlife, either. Artifice.

 

[Hollie]

The internal combustion engine, Computers, the internet, scientific mumbo jumbo. But they work. Some wisenheimer even came up with splitting atoms, or rockets. Somehow, all those scientific hunches worked because they were true. The catholic church punished some scientific minds for not conforming and stating contrary opinions. String theory, multi universes, what else should we believe? Sharia law, inflexible hoodoo and stone people to death if they don't conform?

Here's a plan: I'll be responsible for what I actually post....not everything you can imagine being posted.

SWAG:

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.

• The internal combustion engine, Computers, the internet, scientific mumbo jumbo. But they work. Some wisenheimer even came up with splitting atoms, or rockets. Somehow, all those scientific hunches worked because they were true. The catholic church punished some scientific minds for not conforming and stating contrary opinions. String theory, multi universes, what else should we believe? Sharia law, inflexible hoodoo and stone people to death if they don't conform?

  
  
  
  Here's a plan: I'll be responsible for what I actually post....not everything you can imagine being posted.
  
  SWAG:
  
  The Mulitiverse Theory
  String theory
  The Higgs boson
  The universe created out of nothing.

SWISH:

The sound of a hypothesis flying past the head of the religious extremist.

CRICKETS:

The sound resulting from the religious extremists being required to account for their partisan gawds created by an infinite hierarchy of designer gawds.