What the Right doesn’t get about “scientist and science” Part 1

[rdean]

First, let’s look at the difference between “theory” and “scientific theory”.

Definition of Theory
An unproven conjecture; an expectation of what should happen, barring unforeseen circumstances

In other words, you imagine something will happen and it may or may not, depending on circumstances you weren’t expecting.

Definition of Scientific Theory:
A well-tested concept that explains a wide range of observations.

In other words, a “well tested” concept based on actual repeatable tests and observations.

And how do we get to the “scientific theory”? We use a method known as, “The Scientific Method”. The following is a simplified description:

Definition: The scientific method is a series of steps scientists take to acquire, test, and describe the natural world.

Step 1: Ask questions in the form of a hypothesis

Step 2: Look for patterns in observations

Step 3: Formulate a theory

Step 4: Design experiments to test theory

So the question becomes, “If you can “observe it”, then why is it only a theory? Appearances can be deceiving.

Sometimes, there is no direct observation. Until we are able to create video such as this, we thought sea urchins and starfish were very slow moving and sedentary creatures. After speeding up the video, we now know they are extreme hunters with voracious appetites. Previously, this was only a "theory".

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3W4OCnHyCs[/ame]

Some events are so slow moving, they can’t be “taped” but only studied by looking and understanding the available evidence.

Two examples are evolution and plate tectonics.

Evidence proving plate tectonics are mountains and faults, ocean floors raised thousands of feet above sea level and the tiny observations from satellites, geology and many other “bits” of example.

Evidence proving evolution are fossils, where the fossils (geological location) are found, genetics, Disease, birth defects and fetal development among others.

Any alternate theories must be scrutinized by the methods listed above.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First, let’s look at the difference between “theory” and “scientific theory”.

Definition of Theory
An unproven conjecture; an expectation of what should happen, barring unforeseen circumstances

In other words, you imagine something will happen and it may or may not, depending on circumstances you weren’t expecting.

Definition of Scientific Theory:
A well-tested concept that explains a wide range of observations.

In other words, a “well tested” concept based on actual repeatable tests and observations.

What dictionary do you use? Merriam Webster makes no distinction between the definition of "theory" and "scientific theory," and none of the definitions fall in line with your "well tested" concept definition.


Theory - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Scientific theories are not "well tested" in the sense you are attempting to use the words, they are simply accepted explanations that are not contradicted by observed facts. Funny thing about scientific theories, new evidence can always come along to disprove them. Laws are even subject to revision when people pay enough attention, and those generally fall into the "well tested" category you are trying to shoehorn theories into.

For centuries, physicists have thought that the amount of force needed to start a book sliding across a table is equal to the force from friction that keeps book and table stuck together. That frictional force is determined by a number called the coefficient of friction, which is the ratio between the forces pushing sideways and pushing down (basically, how much the book weighs).

These laws were first described by Leonardo da Vinci in the 15th century, and re-derived by Guillaume Amontons and Charles Coulomb a few hundred years later. They’ve been the stuff of introductory physics textbooks for decades.

But when Fineberg’s student Oded Ben-David, first author of a paper in the October 8 Science describing their experiments, tried to reproduce them in carefully controlled lab experiments, the laws fell apart. Ben-David found that he could apply up to five times as much sideways force as the coefficient of friction predicted, and the book still wouldn’t move.

“Even in the lab, he couldn’t predict what was going to happen,” Fineberg said. “Small, crazy details made a really big difference. ”

Lab-Sized Earthquakes Challenge Basic Laws of Physics | Wired Science | Wired.com

This is why I like science, because we can find out that the stuff we knew for centuries was wrong.

And how do we get to the “scientific theory”? We use a method known as, “The Scientific Method”. The following is a simplified description:

Definition: The scientific method is a series of steps scientists take to acquire, test, and describe the natural world.

Step 1: Ask questions in the form of a hypothesis

Step 2: Look for patterns in observations

Step 3: Formulate a theory

Step 4: Design experiments to test theory

So the question becomes, “If you can “observe it”, then why is it only a theory? Appearances can be deceiving.

I bet you have no idea, since all you are doing here is repeating the definition found in the most basic, grade school level, textbook about science.

Sometimes, there is no direct observation. Until we are able to create video such as this, we thought sea urchins and starfish were very slow moving and sedentary creatures. After speeding up the video, we now know they are extreme hunters with voracious appetites. Previously, this was only a "theory".

It was? Who first proposed this "theory?" What evidence did they provide to back up their hypothesis?

Some events are so slow moving, they can’t be “taped” but only studied by looking and understanding the available evidence.

Two examples are evolution and plate tectonics.

Evidence proving plate tectonics are mountains and faults, ocean floors raised thousands of feet above sea level and the tiny observations from satellites, geology and many other “bits” of example.

Evidence proving evolution are fossils, where the fossils (geological location) are found, genetics, Disease, birth defects and fetal development among others.

Any alternate theories must be scrutinized by the methods listed above.

What does any of this have to do with the right not getting science? If you represent the "left" you have just demonstrated a complete lack of qualifications to educate anyone about science, because you do not get it at all. How can you call others for not getting something you do not understand?

 

[California Girl]

Oh shit..... there's gonna be a 'part 2'. I may need to consider putting rdean on ignore.... just in case stupidity is communicable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh shit..... there's gonna be a 'part 2'. I may need to consider putting rdean on ignore.... just in case stupidity is communicable.

I inoculate myself by reading, I highly recommend it.

 

[Revere]

You mean, you can't predict earthquakes across any time period, but you can predict climate change?

 

[California Girl]

Oh shit..... there's gonna be a 'part 2'. I may need to consider putting rdean on ignore.... just in case stupidity is communicable.

I inoculate myself by reading, I highly recommend it.

I hope you're not recommending I actually read his shit?

 

[rdean]

First, let’s look at the difference between “theory” and “scientific theory”.

Definition of Theory
An unproven conjecture; an expectation of what should happen, barring unforeseen circumstances

In other words, you imagine something will happen and it may or may not, depending on circumstances you weren’t expecting.

Definition of Scientific Theory:
A well-tested concept that explains a wide range of observations.

In other words, a “well tested” concept based on actual repeatable tests and observations.

What dictionary do you use? Merriam Webster makes no distinction between the definition of "theory" and "scientific theory," and none of the definitions fall in line with your "well tested" concept definition.


Theory - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Scientific theories are not "well tested" in the sense you are attempting to use the words, they are simply accepted explanations that are not contradicted by observed facts. Funny thing about scientific theories, new evidence can always come along to disprove them. Laws are even subject to revision when people pay enough attention, and those generally fall into the "well tested" category you are trying to shoehorn theories into.



Lab-Sized Earthquakes Challenge Basic Laws of Physics | Wired Science | Wired.com

This is why I like science, because we can find out that the stuff we knew for centuries was wrong.



I bet you have no idea, since all you are doing here is repeating the definition found in the most basic, grade school level, textbook about science.

Sometimes, there is no direct observation. Until we are able to create video such as this, we thought sea urchins and starfish were very slow moving and sedentary creatures. After speeding up the video, we now know they are extreme hunters with voracious appetites. Previously, this was only a "theory".

It was? Who first proposed this "theory?" What evidence did they provide to back up their hypothesis?

Some events are so slow moving, they can’t be “taped” but only studied by looking and understanding the available evidence.

Two examples are evolution and plate tectonics.

Evidence proving plate tectonics are mountains and faults, ocean floors raised thousands of feet above sea level and the tiny observations from satellites, geology and many other “bits” of example.

Evidence proving evolution are fossils, where the fossils (geological location) are found, genetics, Disease, birth defects and fetal development among others.

Any alternate theories must be scrutinized by the methods listed above.

What does any of this have to do with the right not getting science? If you represent the "left" you have just demonstrated a complete lack of qualifications to educate anyone about science, because you do not get it at all. How can you call others for not getting something you do not understand?

I would be interested in who wrote that ridiculous article. Maybe it was planted as a joke?

For centuries, physicists have thought that the amount of force needed to start a book sliding across a table is equal to the force from friction that keeps book and table stuck together. That frictional force is determined by a number called the coefficient of friction, which is the ratio between the forces pushing sideways and pushing down (basically, how much the book weighs).

Scientists have known for at least decades about static friction and kinetic friction. Because I was shown that in a physics class 20 years ago at least. The amount of force to start a stationary object moving (static friction) is greater than the amount of force needed to keep it moving (kinetic friction). It's really easy to prove. Put some of those Teflon cups on chair legs. Push the chair. It takes some effort to get it moving, but once it is moving, it's very easy to keep moving.

So your point is that scientists "learn stuff"? Religion just reads the same old nonsense over and over again. Science is always learning and "finding out".

 

[Annie]

...

Definition: The scientific method is a series of steps scientists take to acquire, test, and describe the natural world.

Step 1: Ask questions in the form of a hypothesis

Step 2: Look for patterns in observations

Step 3: Formulate a theory

Step 4: Design experiments to test theory

So the question becomes, “If you can “observe it”, then why is it only a theory? Appearances can be deceiving.

...

Any alternate theories must be scrutinized by the methods listed above.

rdean, almost gets the basic steps right, but fails:

Here, try this site, for those working on science fairs:


Steps of the Scientific Method

What he and so many others that truly believe they are the defenders of science, is the ability to replicate the findings, and challenge the conclusions. Something that some now want to call, 'denying truth.'

 

[rdean]

...

Definition: The scientific method is a series of steps scientists take to acquire, test, and describe the natural world.

Step 1: Ask questions in the form of a hypothesis

Step 2: Look for patterns in observations

Step 3: Formulate a theory

Step 4: Design experiments to test theory

So the question becomes, “If you can “observe it”, then why is it only a theory? Appearances can be deceiving.

...

Any alternate theories must be scrutinized by the methods listed above.

rdean, almost gets the basic steps right, but fails:

Here, try this site, for those working on science fairs:


Steps of the Scientific Method

What he and so many others that truly believe they are the defenders of science, is the ability to replicate the findings, and challenge the conclusions. Something that some now want to call, 'denying truth.'

The "scientific method" is a guideline. It can be more than 4 steps or 8 steps or 800 steps. It's not like the Bible where there are only 10 Commandments.

 

[Sheldon]

An rdean "scientists and science" thread and no mention of 6 percent? You're slipping, dude.

 

[Trajan]

You mean, you can't predict earthquakes across any time period, but you can predict climate change?

or social engineering? not that we lack qualitative and quantitative analysis of the failure of spreading the wealth around...selective as usual.

 

[Annie]

...

Definition: The scientific method is a series of steps scientists take to acquire, test, and describe the natural world.

Step 1: Ask questions in the form of a hypothesis

Step 2: Look for patterns in observations

Step 3: Formulate a theory

Step 4: Design experiments to test theory

So the question becomes, “If you can “observe it”, then why is it only a theory? Appearances can be deceiving.

...

Any alternate theories must be scrutinized by the methods listed above.

rdean, almost gets the basic steps right, but fails:

Here, try this site, for those working on science fairs:


Steps of the Scientific Method

What he and so many others that truly believe they are the defenders of science, is the ability to replicate the findings, and challenge the conclusions. Something that some now want to call, 'denying truth.'

The "scientific method" is a guideline. It can be more than 4 steps or 8 steps or 800 steps. It's not like the Bible where there are only 10 Commandments.

Right, because guidelines and moving targets work so well for replicating results. Uh huh. You haven't a clue, but that suits well your points, as you don't give a fig about truth, scientific or otherwise, just some 'well meaning' agenda, regardless of unintended consequences.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I would be interested in who wrote that ridiculous article. Maybe it was planted as a joke?

For centuries, physicists have thought that the amount of force needed to start a book sliding across a table is equal to the force from friction that keeps book and table stuck together. That frictional force is determined by a number called the coefficient of friction, which is the ratio between the forces pushing sideways and pushing down (basically, how much the book weighs).

Scientists have known for at least decades about static friction and kinetic friction. Because I was shown that in a physics class 20 years ago at least. The amount of force to start a stationary object moving (static friction) is greater than the amount of force needed to keep it moving (kinetic friction). It's really easy to prove. Put some of those Teflon cups on chair legs. Push the chair. It takes some effort to get it moving, but once it is moving, it's very easy to keep moving.

Are you going out of your way to demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension? Of course it is easier to keep something in motion than it is to start it in motion, that is called conservation of momentum.

Conservation of Momentum

Momentum and friction are completely separate properties. One is inherent in matter, and the other is dependent on the surface of an object, and the surface upon which it is resting. Kinetic friction is different from static friction because of conservation of momentum.

So your point is that scientists "learn stuff"? Religion just reads the same old nonsense over and over again. Science is always learning and "finding out".

No, my point actually is that you never learn.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...

Definition: The scientific method is a series of steps scientists take to acquire, test, and describe the natural world.

Step 1: Ask questions in the form of a hypothesis

Step 2: Look for patterns in observations

Step 3: Formulate a theory

Step 4: Design experiments to test theory

So the question becomes, “If you can “observe it”, then why is it only a theory? Appearances can be deceiving.

...

Any alternate theories must be scrutinized by the methods listed above.

rdean, almost gets the basic steps right, but fails:

Here, try this site, for those working on science fairs:


Steps of the Scientific Method

What he and so many others that truly believe they are the defenders of science, is the ability to replicate the findings, and challenge the conclusions. Something that some now want to call, 'denying truth.'

The "scientific method" is a guideline. It can be more than 4 steps or 8 steps or 800 steps. It's not like the Bible where there are only 10 Commandments.

Can we bet on that?

 

[DiveCon]

rdean, almost gets the basic steps right, but fails:

Here, try this site, for those working on science fairs:


Steps of the Scientific Method

What he and so many others that truly believe they are the defenders of science, is the ability to replicate the findings, and challenge the conclusions. Something that some now want to call, 'denying truth.'

The "scientific method" is a guideline. It can be more than 4 steps or 8 steps or 800 steps. It's not like the Bible where there are only 10 Commandments.

Can we bet on that?

hes an arrogant idiot
he has no clue about the bible or science

 

[SFC Ollie]

Definitions of scientific theory on the Web:

* a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A lot of hypotheses are based on theories. In turn, theories may be redefined as new hypotheses are tested. ...
LabWrite Glossary

* A body of knowledge using controlled-variable experimental methods to construct a formal and mathematically structured system. It studies the character of natural reality. Scientific Management (6). System of management popular in the first decades of the 20th c. ...
Engineering ethics: glossary of terms

* A well-tested concept that explains a wide range of observations.
lams.slcusd.org/pages/teachers/science7/Earth'sHistory/Evolution/CH.%207%20Vocabulary.doc

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The "scientific method" is a guideline. It can be more than 4 steps or 8 steps or 800 steps. It's not like the Bible where there are only 10 Commandments.

Can we bet on that?

hes an arrogant idiot
he has no clue about the bible or science

I am hoping he doesn't know that, and takes the bet.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

For Rdean, Science is the new religion. Instead of cassocks and surplices, there are lab coats and pocket protectors. Rdean knows the catechism of his religion better than the pope. He is the Grand Inquisitor of the Scientific Orthodoxy.

Science is the not the level of the authority pronouncing on matters, it is the level and rigor of the proof. Aristotle had a theory that big things fall faster than small things. Stands to reason.... After all they are heavier. That is a theory. It ran the world of religion and science for 1800 years. But Galeliio actually went up to the top of a bell towner with a pair of cannon balls and checked it out. Ooops, authority was wrong.

Science is testing the theory every way possible, and making sure the theory conforms to the facts. If theory does not stand up to facts, it is not the facts that have to give way.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The ChiComs are already working on a way to assemble a cruise missile made exclusively out of sea urchins and starfish