In this latest age of Science Denial is there a consensus on "Consensus in science?"

[Dante]

Science denial has always been with us. Been with us for as long as science has been practiced. "Practiced" yes. As in medicine being "practiced." When we move away from sophomoric stage acts like that of George Carlin (Doctor's are only practicing...), words like consensus and practice take on more sophisticated, yet simple meanings.

So the question is "In this, the latest age of Science Denial, is there a consensus on "consensus in science?"

Let us help out here:
Consensus in science: Black hole information paradox - In 30 seconds...

"Is there life beyond Earth? Finding it is something that might happen in the next few years. The laws of nature, the basic fundamental laws of nature don't care which way you run time. So if you throw the book into a black hole is that information somehow imprinted in the Hawking radiation. When the black hole's gone Steven Hawkings calculation said no information less. And the current consensus now um, is that the information comes out again."

"Professor Brian Cox joins our show..."


Life Beyond Earth Nears Proof - Black Holes, Time, Aliens | BRIAN COX FULL INTERVIEW

 

[ReinyDays]

Science denial has always been with us.

Catholic denial has been around longer ... because that's all science is, denying God created Heaven and Earth ...

It's all about "frame-of-reference" ... [giggle] ... seriously, we don't call it the Newtonian Revolution because the discoveries were boring and inelegant ... science was untrustworthy before then ...

Newton showed us the math ...

 

[Dante]

Catholic denial has been around longer ... because that's all science is, denying God created Heaven and Earth ...

It's all about "frame-of-reference" ... [giggle] ... seriously, we don't call it the Newtonian Revolution because the discoveries were boring and inelegant ... science was untrustworthy before then ...

Newton showed us the math ...

What a bizarre post


thank you

btw, you do know about Catholic Priests like Father Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest and theoretical physicist, is widely recognized as the originator of the Big Bang theory. He first proposed that the universe is expanding, a concept that laid the foundation for the Big Bang model.

 

[Dante]

Science denial has always been with us. Been with us for as long as science has been practiced. "Practiced" yes. As in medicine being "practiced." When we move away from sophomoric stage acts like that of George Carlin (Doctor's are only practicing...), words like consensus and practice take on more sophisticated, yet simple meanings.

So the question is "In this, the latest age of Science Denial, is there a consensus on "consensus in science?"

Let us help out here:
Consensus in science: Black hole information paradox - In 30 seconds...

"Is there life beyond Earth? Finding it is something that might happen in the next few years. The laws of nature, the basic fundamental laws of nature don't care which way you run time. So if you throw the book into a black hole is that information somehow imprinted in the Hawking radiation. When the black hole's gone Steven Hawkings calculation said no information less. And the current consensus now um, is that the information comes out again."

"Professor Brian Cox joins our show..."


Life Beyond Earth Nears Proof - Black Holes, Time, Aliens | BRIAN COX FULL INTERVIEW

consensus in science

 

[ReinyDays]

What a bizarre post


thank you

btw, you do know about Catholic Priests like Father Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest and theoretical physicist, is widely recognized as the originator of the Big Bang theory. He first proposed that the universe is expanding, a concept that laid the foundation for the Big Bang model.

Just making an historical statement ... Copernicus and Galileo were seen as heretics ...

Are we not "denying" evolutionary science by feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and clothing the naked? ... science doesn't answer all questions ... it's not denying science to look elsewhere for solutions ...

 

[Dante]

Just making an historical statement ... Copernicus and Galileo were seen as heretics ...

Are we not "denying" evolutionary science by feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and clothing the naked? ... science doesn't answer all questions ... it's not denying science to look elsewhere for solutions ...

Nope

But that is exactly what many people are doing ..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Science denial has always been with us. Been with us for as long as science has been practiced. "Practiced" yes. As in medicine being "practiced." When we move away from sophomoric stage acts like that of George Carlin (Doctor's are only practicing...), words like consensus and practice take on more sophisticated, yet simple meanings.

So the question is "In this, the latest age of Science Denial, is there a consensus on "consensus in science?"

Let us help out here:
Consensus in science: Black hole information paradox - In 30 seconds...

"Is there life beyond Earth? Finding it is something that might happen in the next few years. The laws of nature, the basic fundamental laws of nature don't care which way you run time. So if you throw the book into a black hole is that information somehow imprinted in the Hawking radiation. When the black hole's gone Steven Hawkings calculation said no information less. And the current consensus now um, is that the information comes out again."

"Professor Brian Cox joins our show..."


Life Beyond Earth Nears Proof - Black Holes, Time, Aliens | BRIAN COX FULL INTERVIEW

Consensus of scientists is simply a symptom of consensus of the evidemce.

And yes, such a concept exists. It's why there are no scientists looking for rabbit fossils in the Cambrian layers. It's why no scientists are researching whether or not microbes actually cause disease. It's why no scientists are researching the idea that stars are made of linoleum.

Yes, consensus not only exists in science, but is also an important and powerful thing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Are we not "denying" evolutionary science by feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and clothing the naked?

None of that constitutes denying the truth of the fact that is evolutionary theory.

So, no.

You're also not "denying" gravitational theory, when you fly in a plane.

 

[Churchill]

None of that constitutes denying the truth of the fact that is evolutionary theory.

A thing cannot be a fact and a theory at the same time, to misunderstand that is to misunderstand science.

A fact is either a self evidently true proposition or a provably true proposition, theories do not produce provably true propositions only provably false propositions (aka falsification).

So, no.

You're also not "denying" gravitational theory, when you fly in a plane.

There are several gravitation theories, which one are you talking about?

 

[Churchill]

Just making an historical statement ... Copernicus and Galileo were seen as heretics ...

Not by every Catholic official.

Are we not "denying" evolutionary science by feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and clothing the naked? ... science doesn't answer all questions ... it's not denying science to look elsewhere for solutions ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A thing cannot be a fact and a theory at the same time, to misunderstand that is to misunderstand science.

This is 100% wrong.

True things are facts.

Some theories are true.

Therefore, some theories are facts.

A scientific theory is an explanation. And yes, many of them are also facts. Like, the theory of evolution.

There are several gravitation theories, which one are you talking about?

Which one are we violating, when we fly on a plane?

None of them.

Therefore, it doesn't matter which one I am talking about.

 

[Churchill]

This is 100% wrong and shows that you dont know what these words mean.

But I do, anyone can look them up.

True things are facts.

Some theories are true.

Theories are neither true or false, only the predictions that arise from them are either experimentally verified or falsified. If a theory makes a prediction and the prediction does not match experiment then the theory is said to be falsified.

Therefore, some theories are facts.

That does not follow.

A scientific theory is an explanation.

Not quite, it has to be a rational and testable explanation.

And yes, many of them are also facts.

That does not follow.

Which one are we violating, when we fly on a plane?

You cant "violate" a theory, you can only test its predictions, for example when you fly on a plane you can falsify Newtonian gravitation which assumes time is universal not relative.

None of them.

Therefore, it doesn't matter which one I am talking about.

It does in the example you cited.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But I do, anyone can look them up.

Then I advise you to do so immediately, because scientific theories can, indeed, be facts.

Good luck.

That does not follow.

Its not supposed to "follow". It's a premise.

I think you also need to look up how a simple argument is constructed.

You cant "violate" a theory

Well that"s also 100% wrong. If you observe something that contradicts the assertions of the theory, iy has been violated. I.E. falsified.

Finding rabbit fossils in the Cambrian would violate the theory of evolution., for example.

But nobody is looking for that, nor will it ever happen. Because the theory of evolution is a fact.

 

[Churchill]

Then I advise you to do so immediately, because scientific theories can, indeed, be facts.

Good luck.





Its not supposed to "follow". It's a premise.

I think you also need to look up how a simple argument is constructed.



Well that"s also 100% wrong. If you observe something that contradicts the assertions of the theory, iy has been violated. I.E. falsified.

Finding rabbit fossils in the Cambrian would violate the theory of evolution., for example.

But nobody is looking for that, nor will it ever happen. Because the theory of evolution is a fact.

Your abuse of these terms indicates a poor understanding of them.

You should have done this yourself, save yourself a lot of embarrassment.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your abuse of these terms indicates a poor understanding of them.



You should have done this yourself, save yourself a lot of embarrassment.

Oops, looks like you and your AI crutch need to get your stories straight.

If I want to argue with AI, I can. I dont need a mindless internet rando who doesnt actually know anything about the material to act as a middle man.

Good luck winning the debate you lost 150 years ago. You'll need it.

 

[Churchill]

Oops, looks like you and your AI crutch need to get your stories straight.

OK so how about this from the National Center for Science Education:

Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work | National Center for Science Education

Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work.

ncse.ngo

See that highlighted term specialized? you are using these terms as a layman might, a person who enjoys pop-science, not as a trained educated scientist does.

As you can see Fact and Theory have different definitions that's because they are not the same, now do you believe me?

If I want to argue with AI, I can. I dont need a mindless internet rando who doesnt actually know anything about the material to act as a middle man.

Good luck winning the debate you lost 150 years ago. You'll need it.

Which debate are you referring to? I'm far less than 150 years old!

Now, would you say the theory of general relativity was also a fact then?

 

[dblack]

Science denial has always been with us. Been with us for as long as science has been practiced. "Practiced" yes. As in medicine being "practiced." When we move away from sophomoric stage acts like that of George Carlin (Doctor's are only practicing...), words like consensus and practice take on more sophisticated, yet simple meanings.

So the question is "In this, the latest age of Science Denial, is there a consensus on "consensus in science?"

Let us help out here:
Consensus in science: Black hole information paradox - In 30 seconds...

"Is there life beyond Earth? Finding it is something that might happen in the next few years. The laws of nature, the basic fundamental laws of nature don't care which way you run time. So if you throw the book into a black hole is that information somehow imprinted in the Hawking radiation. When the black hole's gone Steven Hawkings calculation said no information less. And the current consensus now um, is that the information comes out again."

"Professor Brian Cox joins our show..."


Life Beyond Earth Nears Proof - Black Holes, Time, Aliens | BRIAN COX FULL INTERVIEW

Like so many things in society, scientific inquiry has been polluted by the culture war. Most of the arguments we have around science aren't really about the science (as much as we might pretend), but around the proposed political solutions.

Take climate science: we bicker back and forth, claiming and denying "facts" that supposedly support our position or don't. But really, the argument - the vehement resistance - is over the proposed solutions. Democrats want more government control over labor and resources. So the only solutions they come up with are basically MOAR SOSHULISM!!!!

As much as I think conservatives are right on most things, most of them aren't very smart. They can't formulate coherent arguments explaining why socialism is a bad solution, so instead, they pretend that climate change isn't real. They don't really know that as a fact, but it's important to their narrative that the Dems excuse for their agenda be false. They've ignorantly accepted the left's premise - that socialism is the only answer to climate change - and their only way out is to deny the climate change.

 

[Churchill]

Like so many things in society, scientific inquiry has been polluted by the culture war. Most of the arguments we have around science aren't really about the science (as much as we might pretend), but around the proposed political solutions.

Take climate science: we bicker back and forth, claiming and denying "facts" that supposedly support our position or don't. But really, the argument - the vehement resistance - is over the proposed solutions. Democrats want more government control over labor and resources. So the only solutions they come up with are basically MOAR SOSHULISM!!!!

Do you approve of police being socialized or should they be privatized? perhaps only being available to those who pay for police insurance or something?

As much as I think conservatives are right on most things, most of them aren't very smart. They can't formulate coherent arguments explaining why socialism is a bad solution, so instead, they pretend that climate change isn't real. They don't really know that as a fact, but it's important to their narrative that the Dems excuse for their agenda be false. They've ignorantly accepted the left's premise - that socialism is the only answer to climate change - and their only way out is to deny the climate change.

 

[dblack]

Do you approve of police being socialized or should they be privatized?

That tac makes no sense. Police aren't the "means of production". They ARE the government. Privatizing police would simply be disbanding them in favor of private security - and no, I don't think that would be a good idea. It would be a very bad idea. Like privatizing prisons.

We're privatizing the very functions that ONLY government should do, and hell bent on socializing everything else.

 

[Churchill]

That tac makes no sense. Police aren't the "means of production". They ARE the government. Privatizing police would simply be disbanding them in favor of private security - and no, I don't think that would be a good idea. It would be a very bad idea. Like privatizing prisons.

So socialized police (paid for collectively) is better for society than private. You see the the welfare of the population is an aspect of the means of production, you need people, people who can sleep soundly with their families, in order to produce anything.

So social stability and low crime is for the good of all.

We're privatizing the very functions that ONLY government should do, and hell bent on socializing everything else.

USPS is socialized, they want to privatize that but that will reduce the quality of service that the public enjoy and favor those who invested in that privatization.

Look at Britain's NHS - a socialized health service, everyone gets the same standard of service, no need for private insurance and prescriptions cost the same no matter what the medicine is.

Socialized health is the same idea as socialized police, one protects you from burglars, rapists, thieves, the other protects you from sickness.