Republicans Against Science

[daveman]

Republicans say they are FOR science and then everything they say afterwards proves they're not.

Do they really think they can have it both ways?

Leftists say they are intelligent and then everything they say afterwards proves they're not.

Do they really think they can have it both ways?

I've found that if you are really intelligent, you don't have to announce your intellectual superiority to the world. If you are, you are. Your words and actions support it.

Indeed.

 

[konradv]

Sentience-out-of-protoplasm evolution is, by its very definition, still just a theory...That is a semantic fact.

Now, I believe that you were saying something about someone who doesn't know jack shit about the topic they are discussing?

There's no such thing in the scientific community as "just a theory". If you're going to make the pretense of discussing science, at least do it in the terms of the field. A theory is not to be taken lightly, as you would have us believe, and it's incumbent on YOU to prove it false. If it's at all accepted by the majority of scientists, the "proof" has already been made and a mere dismissal by skeptics means nothing. As you say, it IS semantics. You just happen to be on the wrong side of the way the word is understood.

War is peace

Freedom is slavery

Ignorance is strength

Should have realized that's your mantra. Keep denying, as if that made it so. You're attempting to make your definition the ONLY defintion. VERY 1984!!!

 

[AmericanFirst]

I wonder how many conservatives know what a Hypothesis is.

I'm thinking not many.

I always wonder how many libtards know what intelligence is? Guaranteed very few.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'd say a theory that can't explain how life formed where there was no life has a pretty big frickin' hole in it.

The "science" crowd expect that to go unquestioned. Ya wanna see their little pinheads explode? Tell them you accept creationism AND evolution.

 

[konradv]

I'd say a theory that can't explain how life formed where there was no life has a pretty big frickin' hole in it.

The "science" crowd expect that to go unquestioned. Ya wanna see their little pinheads explode? Tell them you accept creationism AND evolution.

What's wrong with that? If you're a theistic scientist the "creation" part came at the Big Bang, "let there be light". The rest is evolution. You can come out now, no explosions!!!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'd say a theory that can't explain how life formed where there was no life has a pretty big frickin' hole in it.

The "science" crowd expect that to go unquestioned. Ya wanna see their little pinheads explode? Tell them you accept creationism AND evolution.

What's wrong with that? If you're a theistic scientist the "creation" part came at the Big Bang, "let there be light". The rest is evolution. You can come out now, no explosions!!!

Fine by me man.... fine by me. I've been told on these very boards that "you can't have it both ways". Which I find colossally goofy BTW.

 

[flacaltenn]

konradv:

A theory is not to be taken lightly, as you would have us believe, and it's incumbent on YOU to prove it false. If it's at all accepted by the majority of scientists, the "proof" has already been made and a mere dismissal by skeptics means nothing.

Actually, you can amend theories, you can limit their scope, you can whittle them down, or you can build them up. This is NOT an up or down "vote" situation. Not a True/False process.

Any scientist who "improves" a theory by a tiny bit -- realizes that humongeous debt he owes to the originator. And hopefully doesn't have the hubris to try and name it after herhimself..

So I don't have to find a fatal flaw in a theory to change it's claim and scope --

All I really have to do to participate is -- ask a question that the theory doesn't answer. From then on -- it's recognized that the theory doesn't address my question. Best part of that is -- the author of the theory and I will generally agree.

 

[konradv]

Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.” This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us.

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html

Maybe someone should mention to Krugman that it's called Darwin's Theory of Evolution. If they could prove it accurate it would be called Darwin's Law of Evolution.

As to global warming... In the seventies the scientific community's "consensus" was that the earth was cooling and that we were heading into a new Ice Age.

Please also recall that at one time in history, the best educated people on the planet thought the earth was flat.

You're still falling into the trap of assuming that 'theory' means something like 'guess'. That may be the common defintion, but it isn't the scientific defintion.

You're wrong on two counts regarding the move to a new Ice Age. First it was not a "consensus", it was a hypothesis that a few ascribed to. Second, the implication of the post is that "scientists don't know what they're doing" with regard to Earth's climate, when the real question you should be asking is, "what made them change their minds so fast?"

 

[konradv]

konradv:

A theory is not to be taken lightly, as you would have us believe, and it's incumbent on YOU to prove it false. If it's at all accepted by the majority of scientists, the "proof" has already been made and a mere dismissal by skeptics means nothing.

Actually, you can amend theories, you can limit their scope, you can whittle them down, or you can build them up. This is NOT an up or down "vote" situation. Not a True/False process.

Any scientist who "improves" a theory by a tiny bit -- realizes that humongeous debt he owes to the originator. And hopefully doesn't have the hubris to try and name it after herhimself..

So I don't have to find a fatal flaw in a theory to change it's claim and scope --

All I really have to do to participate is -- ask a question that the theory doesn't answer. From then on -- it's recognized that the theory doesn't address my question. Best part of that is -- the author of the theory and I will generally agree.

I don't really see where we're at odds. What you're talking about is how scientists make the "proof" more solid, i.e. by whittling away at the inconsistencies. That doesn't disprove the theory. What I was talking about is a situation where the theory is actually proved false, which deniers haven't done and can't be done in a scientific manner just by pointing out that it's "merely a theory", but by experimentation that debunks the very basis of the theory.

 

[rdean]

Republicans have been screaming liar at me for saying they don't believe in science. They say all they want to do is "teach the controversy". That the Grand Canyon came from "Noah's Flood" and we were magically shimmered into being from dirt by an all knowing and all seeing supernatural invisible being, that's all!

 

[konradv]

The "science" crowd expect that to go unquestioned. Ya wanna see their little pinheads explode? Tell them you accept creationism AND evolution.

What's wrong with that? If you're a theistic scientist the "creation" part came at the Big Bang, "let there be light". The rest is evolution. You can come out now, no explosions!!!

Fine by me man.... fine by me. I've been told on these very boards that "you can't have it both ways". Which I find colossally goofy BTW.

You can't have evolution AND the literal reading of Genesis. That would be having it both ways. IMO, the "let there be light" part was inspired, but the rest are guesses based on the writers' limited knowledge.

 

[rdean]

konradv:

A theory is not to be taken lightly, as you would have us believe, and it's incumbent on YOU to prove it false. If it's at all accepted by the majority of scientists, the "proof" has already been made and a mere dismissal by skeptics means nothing.

Actually, you can amend theories, you can limit their scope, you can whittle them down, or you can build them up. This is NOT an up or down "vote" situation. Not a True/False process.

Any scientist who "improves" a theory by a tiny bit -- realizes that humongeous debt he owes to the originator. And hopefully doesn't have the hubris to try and name it after herhimself..

So I don't have to find a fatal flaw in a theory to change it's claim and scope --

All I really have to do to participate is -- ask a question that the theory doesn't answer. From then on -- it's recognized that the theory doesn't address my question. Best part of that is -- the author of the theory and I will generally agree.

I don't really see where we're at odds. What you're talking about is how scientists make the "proof" more solid, i.e. by whittling away at the inconsistencies. That doesn't disprove the theory. What I was talking about is a situation where the theory is actually proved false, which deniers haven't done and can't be done in a scientific manner just by pointing out that it's "merely a theory", but by experimentation that debunks the very basis of the theory.

Inconsistencies? Name one.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What's wrong with that? If you're a theistic scientist the "creation" part came at the Big Bang, "let there be light". The rest is evolution. You can come out now, no explosions!!!

Fine by me man.... fine by me. I've been told on these very boards that "you can't have it both ways". Which I find colossally goofy BTW.

You can't have evolution AND the literal reading of Genesis. That would be having it both ways. IMO, the "let there be light" part was inspired, but the rest are guesses based on the writers' limited knowledge.

Well certainly... the idea that magically two nude humans appeared donning fig leaves is, well, never mind.

 

[Avatar9]

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists.

You can tell when someone knows jack shit about the topic they are discussing

Until we see the actual first organism that started evolution then it is a theory.

You won't believe in God unless you see him, likewise I won't believe in evolution unless I see "Organism #1".

So actually observing evolution (nylonase, for instance) doesn't prove evolution in your mind?

You can tell when someone knows jack shit about the topic they are discussing

Until we see the actual first organism that started evolution then it is a theory.

You won't believe in God unless you see him, likewise I won't believe in evolution unless I see "Organism #1".

Just like a supreme being and after life are theories.

Actually, those are hypotheses, not theories.

I'd say a theory that can't explain how life formed where there was no life has a pretty big frickin' hole in it.

So relativity has a pretty big frickin' hole in it?

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists.

You can tell when someone knows jack shit about the topic they are discussing

Sentience-out-of-protoplasm evolution is, by its very definition, still just a theory...

No, it's not. It never was. Because nobody's ever forwarded such a theory.

Why do you have to lie about the subject at hand?

Or are you truly that ignorant of the matter?

Now, I believe that you were saying something about someone who doesn't know jack shit about the topic they are discussing?

Maybe someone should mention to Krugman that it's called Darwin's Theory of Evolution. If they could prove it accurate it would be called Darwin's Law of Evolution.

Wrong.

A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning. As well, factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing scientific laws from principles that arise merely accidentally because of the constant conjunction of one thing and another.[1]
A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated.
Scientific law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd say a theory that can't explain how life formed where there was no life has a pretty big frickin' hole in it.

The "science" crowd expect that to go unquestioned. Ya wanna see their little pinheads explode? Tell them you accept creationism AND evolution.

What's wrong with that? If you're a theistic scientist the "creation" part came at the Big Bang, "let there be light". The rest is evolution. You can come out now, no explosions!!!

in a word: deism

 

[konradv]

konradv:


Actually, you can amend theories, you can limit their scope, you can whittle them down, or you can build them up. This is NOT an up or down "vote" situation. Not a True/False process.

Any scientist who "improves" a theory by a tiny bit -- realizes that humongeous debt he owes to the originator. And hopefully doesn't have the hubris to try and name it after herhimself..

So I don't have to find a fatal flaw in a theory to change it's claim and scope --

All I really have to do to participate is -- ask a question that the theory doesn't answer. From then on -- it's recognized that the theory doesn't address my question. Best part of that is -- the author of the theory and I will generally agree.

I don't really see where we're at odds. What you're talking about is how scientists make the "proof" more solid, i.e. by whittling away at the inconsistencies. That doesn't disprove the theory. What I was talking about is a situation where the theory is actually proved false, which deniers haven't done and can't be done in a scientific manner just by pointing out that it's "merely a theory", but by experimentation that debunks the very basis of the theory.

Inconsistencies? Name one.

Relax, I was talking about the scientific method and how it works. You're getting a little too fast on the trigger, partner.

 

[Oddball]

There's no such thing in the scientific community as "just a theory". If you're going to make the pretense of discussing science, at least do it in the terms of the field. A theory is not to be taken lightly, as you would have us believe, and it's incumbent on YOU to prove it false. If it's at all accepted by the majority of scientists, the "proof" has already been made and a mere dismissal by skeptics means nothing. As you say, it IS semantics. You just happen to be on the wrong side of the way the word is understood.

War is peace

Freedom is slavery

Ignorance is strength

Should have realized that's your mantra. Keep denying, as if that made it so. You're attempting to make your definition the ONLY defintion. VERY 1984!!!

Talk about someone completely letting the concept fly clean over his head!

There's a reason that we differentiate words like "hypothesis", "theory" and "fact"....Claiming one as the other, as though words have fungible meanings, is what Orwell was talking about....And exactly the behavior that you are engaging in.

 

[Vel]

Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.” This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us.

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html

Maybe someone should mention to Krugman that it's called Darwin's Theory of Evolution. If they could prove it accurate it would be called Darwin's Law of Evolution.

As to global warming... In the seventies the scientific community's "consensus" was that the earth was cooling and that we were heading into a new Ice Age.

Please also recall that at one time in history, the best educated people on the planet thought the earth was flat.

You're still falling into the trap of assuming that 'theory' means something like 'guess'. That may be the common defintion, but it isn't the scientific defintion.

You're wrong on two counts regarding the move to a new Ice Age. First it was not a "consensus", it was a hypothesis that a few ascribed to. Second, the implication of the post is that "scientists don't know what they're doing" with regard to Earth's climate, when the real question you should be asking is, "what made them change their minds so fast?"

And you have fallen into the trap thinking that "theory" means something like "fact". It does not.
And just because Wiki now says that it only a few scientists that believed the earth was heading towards a new ice age, doesn't make it so. Having lived through the times when people were seriously discussing dumping ash on the polar ice caps to encourage global warming, I can attest that the belief was pretty widespread.
The problem that I see, is that people like you can't seem to take things with the proverbial grain of salt. You fall headfirst into believing wholeheartedly whatever someone with a PHD tells you. Learn to question and use a little common sense. If we only have weather data dating back 100 years or so, then given the believed age of the planet, then we don't have near enough data to judge.

 

[rdean]

I don't really see where we're at odds. What you're talking about is how scientists make the "proof" more solid, i.e. by whittling away at the inconsistencies. That doesn't disprove the theory. What I was talking about is a situation where the theory is actually proved false, which deniers haven't done and can't be done in a scientific manner just by pointing out that it's "merely a theory", but by experimentation that debunks the very basis of the theory.

Inconsistencies? Name one.

Relax, I was talking about the scientific method and how it works. You're getting a little too fast on the trigger, partner.

So you are saying there are inconsistencies in the scientific method?

 

[MiddleClass]

Weather data proves the last decade was the hottest on record, and 2010 tied with 2005 for the hottest year on record. Gases from the burning of fossil fuel, especially carbon dioxide, are trapping heat in the atmosphere, warming the Earth and changing the climate in several ways, according to the overwhelming majority of scientists and the world's top scientific organizations. There is little challenge to this, notwithstanding the politics of it.

 

[flacaltenn]

You can't have evolution AND the literal reading of Genesis. That would be having it both ways. IMO, the "let there be light" part was inspired, but the rest are guesses based on the writers' limited knowledge.

REALLY KONRADV!!!! Have you reviewed this position of yours lately???? ((Don't you dare ask me for link RDean!!!)))

The creation week consists of eight divine commands executed over six days, followed by a seventh day of rest.

First day: Light appears ("Let there be light!")[Gen 1:3]—the first divine command. The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named.

[[Big Bang]]

Second day: God makes a firmament ("Let a firmament be...!")[Gen 1:6–7]—the second command—to divide the waters above from the waters below. The firmament is named "skies".

[[Planetary Formation]]

Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command).[Gen 1:9–10] "earth" and "sea" are named. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees (the fourth command).

[[Atmosphere and Water]] and the Genius of putting [[plants before animals]]

Fourth day: God puts lights in the firmament (the fifth command)[Gen 1:14–15] to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made to appear (most likely the Sun and Moon, but not named), and the stars.

[[A little iffy, but the basics of the planets were there as the sun continued to form.]]

Fifth day: God commands the sea to "teem with living creatures", and birds to fly across the heavens (sixth command)[Gen 1:20–21] He creates birds and sea creatures, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply.

Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command);[Gen 1:24–25] He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates humanity in His "image" and "likeness" (eighth command).[Gen 1:26–28] They are told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." The totality of creation is described by God as "very good."

Seventh day: God, having completed the heavens and the earth,rested from His work, and blesses and sanctifies the seventh day.

Land before oceans. Sea Creatures before Land Animals. Man follows the great biodiversity of the oceans and the land.. What the hell are you talking about?

Ain't that pretty well the sequence that science is acknowledging??

Criminy konradv -- "... the writers limited knowledge". Makes all of our 3 centuries of serious science look like masturbation.. Imagine making those "guesses" WITHOUT Wikipedia...

I'd say the author might have been an eye witness observer..

Maybe the problem is that science lacks the imagination to go BEYOND the Genesis narrative and reach DEEPER for explanations than what we had 2000 years ago..