Republicans Against Science

[pinqy]

[ou 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...That is a semantic fact.[/QUOTE] But it's disingenuous because it implies that if it were true it would become something other than a theory. But that's not how it works. Theories don't become laws or facts or anything else. Of course it's still a theory...ALL theories are still theories.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

You RDean -- You are the singularity that's inconsistent. Are you talking about evolution explaining the entire ascendency of man from one-celled slime? For starters...

Life on Earth

The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life. We hope to provide a comprehensive discussion of these issues on this page soon. For the time being, please refer to the papers listed in the References section.

So RDean -- is that an inconsistency? A significant gap in theory? Or is that just Perry's fault?

 

[Oddball]

But it's disingenuous because it implies that if it were true it would become something other than a theory. But that's not how it works. Theories don't become laws or facts or anything else. Of course it's still a theory...ALL theories are still theories.

Heavier-than-air flight was a theory until all the facts of aerodynamics were uncovered, objectively quantified, physically verified and falsified for all other plausible counter-explanations.....After which aerodynamics became scientific fact.

I don't need a "consensus" of aeronautical engineers to 'splain Bernoulli's Principle to a class of grade school kids.

 

[Vel]

]Weather data proves the last decade was the hottest on record,[/B] 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.

How many decades are NOT on record?

 

[RDD_1210]

And I've found people who rely on faith and reject science have no clue what critical thinking is all about.

And who exactly rejects science?

Science is a method of observation. Not some monolithic belief system. Faith and science are in no way incompatible.

Those who pretend they are incompatible are lying to themselves.

Anyone who denies that there is evidence of evolution is rejecting science. Anyone who brushes off the data about global warming as a conspiracy by Al Gore is rejecting science.

I've never said science and faith are mutually exclusive. I said people who reject science and its data in the name of faith.

 

[pinqy]

Heavier-than-air flight was a theory until all the facts of aerodynamics were uncovered, objectively quantified, physically verified and falsified for all other plausible counter-explanations.....After which it became scientific fact.

No, it's still a theory. The fact is that heavier than air flight occurs. The theory is HOW it occurs and what the processes are. Actually there are many different theories within aerodynamics. Heavier than air flight disproved some theories and confirmed others. (Confirmation of a theory does NOT mean "proved absolutley" but rather "evidence that supports the theory by meeting predictions of the theory").


You don't seem to understand how "theory" is used in a technical sense. Do a quick google search of "theory AND flight" or "theory AND aerodynamics" and see how often the word "theory" is still used.

Similarly, it is a fact that evolution occurs. Changes in the gene pool, speciation, heredity, have all been observed and confirmed. The THEORY is how and why it occurs. Many of Darwin's theories have been proven wrong.

 

[Oddball]

Heavier-than-air flight was a theory until all the facts of aerodynamics were uncovered, objectively quantified, physically verified and falsified for all other plausible counter-explanations.....After which it became scientific fact.

No, it's still a theory. The fact is that heavier than air flight occurs. The theory is HOW it occurs and what the processes are. Actually there are many different theories within aerodynamics. Heavier than air flight disproved some theories and confirmed others. (Confirmation of a theory does NOT mean "proved absolutley" but rather "evidence that supports the theory by meeting predictions of the theory").


You don't seem to understand how "theory" is used in a technical sense. Do a quick google search of "theory AND flight" or "theory AND aerodynamics" and see how often the word "theory" is still used.

Similarly, it is a fact that evolution occurs. Changes in the gene pool, speciation, heredity, have all been observed and confirmed. The THEORY is how and why it occurs. Many of Darwin's theories have been proven wrong.

So, Bernoulli's Principle -the cornerstone of heavier-than-air-flight- hasn't been absolutely objectively quantified, physically verified and falsified for all other plausible counter-explanations?....That's news to me.

In any event, gravity is yet another such objectively quantifiable and verifiable fact...Works every time, no counter-examples of where and when it doesn't....How it mechanically works is still theory.

 

[Flopper]

Unfortunately the Republican candidate has nothing to lose by taking such as a position. Scientist don't vote Republican. The evangelicals see science as a threat. The fiscal conservatives are one trick pony, whose only goal is to reduce the size of government. Science is immaterial.

What is it like in this fantasy world where you can claim a group of people think science is a threat when that's completely false. Science is amoral.

It's the people who want to misuse science that are the problems. You know, the ones who want to claim "Science" says something that it doesn't say.

I've found that people who say they rely on science have no clue what science actually is. I've also found that those people are usually lying to themselves what science is saying and refusing to change their lives to live by it.

There are many people who see science as a threat. For millions of Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, scientists are continually finding evidence that challenges their beliefs. If you believe scientist are wrong about the age of the earth, the creation of the universe, the evolution of man, age of the prophets, Noah and the ark, and the history of our ancient ancestors, then maybe the scientist have it wrong about a lot of other things such as global warming.

Then there are those that see scientific discovery as an economic threat. The economic repercussions of dealing with global warming are a threat to many industries. The cost would change economic priorities around the world.

Changes required to reduce global warming require expansion in government cost and control which is in direct conflict with the aims of Conservatives to reduce the size of government. Conservatives cannot accept global warming regardless of the scientific evidence, because it would threaten their goal of shrinking government.

When a large segment of our society rejects scientific knowledge because it conflicts with religious, political ideology, or economic realities, then we have a very big problem.

 

[Oddball]

Changes required to reduce global warming require expansion in government cost and control which is in direct conflict with the aims of Conservatives to reduce the size of government. Conservatives cannot accept global warming regardless of the scientific evidence, because it would threaten their goal of shrinking government.

Changes required to (reputedly) reduce Goebbels warming require expansion in government cost and control, which is in direct alignment with the political agendas of socialists and other assorted totalitarians across the globe.

Socialists cannot accept the possibility that Goebbels warming is an elaborate pseudo-scientific hoax, because it would threaten their goal of total authoritarian central control over everyone and everything.

Cuts both ways, Scooter.

When a large segment of our society rejects scientific knowledge because it conflicts with religious, political ideology, or economic realities, then we have a very big problem.

Ain't irony a bitch?

 

[Kuros]

And I've found people who rely on faith and reject science have no clue what critical thinking is all about.

And who exactly rejects science?

Science is a method of observation. Not some monolithic belief system. Faith and science are in no way incompatible.

Those who pretend they are incompatible are lying to themselves.

Yes, exactly.

Now please go tell that to the creationists who don't even know how to properly read their own Holy Book.

 

[Kuros]

Unfortunately the Republican candidate has nothing to lose by taking such as a position. Scientist don't vote Republican. The evangelicals see science as a threat. The fiscal conservatives are one trick pony, whose only goal is to reduce the size of government. Science is immaterial.

What is it like in this fantasy world where you can claim a group of people think science is a threat when that's completely false. Science is amoral.

It's the people who want to misuse science that are the problems. You know, the ones who want to claim "Science" says something that it doesn't say.

I've found that people who say they rely on science have no clue what science actually is. I've also found that those people are usually lying to themselves what science is saying and refusing to change their lives to live by it.

There are many people who see science as a threat. For millions of Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, scientists are continually finding evidence that challenges their beliefs. If you believe scientist are wrong about the age of the earth, the creation of the universe, the evolution of man, age of the prophets, Noah and the ark, and the history of our ancient ancestors, then maybe the scientist have it wrong about a lot of other things such as global warming.

Then there are those that see scientific discovery as an economic threat. The economic repercussions of dealing with global warming are a threat to many industries. The cost would change economic priorities around the world.

Changes required to reduce global warming require expansion in government cost and control which is in direct conflict with the aims of Conservatives to reduce the size of government. Conservatives cannot accept global warming regardless of the scientific evidence, because it would threaten their goal of shrinking government.

When a large segment of our society rejects scientific knowledge because it conflicts with religious, political ideology, or economic realities, then we have a very big problem.

Define "scientific knowledge." Because there is academic hysteria and there is scientific knowledge.

Case in point.

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists

As for AGW, I would dispute a lot of the doomsday stories as well as the political measures (Kyoto through Copenhagen) as unscientific. Science teaches us that we are changing our climate and it may have serious repercussions. But the hysteria that comes out of that is totally political.

Socialists cannot accept the possibility that Goebbels warming is an elaborate pseudo-scientific hoax

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Heavier-than-air flight was a theory until all the facts of aerodynamics were uncovered, objectively quantified, physically verified and falsified for all other plausible counter-explanations.....After which it became scientific fact.

No, it's still a theory. The fact is that heavier than air flight occurs. The theory is HOW it occurs and what the processes are. Actually there are many different theories within aerodynamics. Heavier than air flight disproved some theories and confirmed others. (Confirmation of a theory does NOT mean "proved absolutley" but rather "evidence that supports the theory by meeting predictions of the theory").


You don't seem to understand how "theory" is used in a technical sense. Do a quick google search of "theory AND flight" or "theory AND aerodynamics" and see how often the word "theory" is still used.

Similarly, it is a fact that evolution occurs. Changes in the gene pool, speciation, heredity, have all been observed and confirmed. The THEORY is how and why it occurs. Many of Darwin's theories have been proven wrong.

So, Bernoulli's Principle -the cornerstone of heavier-than-air-flight- hasn't been absolutely objectively quantified, physically verified and falsified for all other plausible counter-explanations?....That's news to me.

In any event, gravity is yet another such objectively quantifiable and verifiable fact...Works every time, no counter-examples of where and when it doesn't....How it mechanically works is still theory.

Even a bedrock principle like gravity still has Dark Matter and Dark Energy and the Pioneer Anomaly to contend with.

 

[pinqy]

Heavier-than-air flight was a theory until all the facts of aerodynamics were uncovered, objectively quantified, physically verified and falsified for all other plausible counter-explanations.....After which it became scientific fact.

No, it's still a theory. The fact is that heavier than air flight occurs. The theory is HOW it occurs and what the processes are. Actually there are many different theories within aerodynamics. Heavier than air flight disproved some theories and confirmed others. (Confirmation of a theory does NOT mean "proved absolutley" but rather "evidence that supports the theory by meeting predictions of the theory").


You don't seem to understand how "theory" is used in a technical sense. Do a quick google search of "theory AND flight" or "theory AND aerodynamics" and see how often the word "theory" is still used.

Similarly, it is a fact that evolution occurs. Changes in the gene pool, speciation, heredity, have all been observed and confirmed. The THEORY is how and why it occurs. Many of Darwin's theories have been proven wrong.

So, Bernoulli's Principle -the cornerstone of heavier-than-air-flight- hasn't been absolutely objectively quantified, physically verified and falsified for all other plausible counter-explanations?....That's news to me.[/qutoe]Bernoulli's Principle is not a theory. It is sometimes used as PART of the theory of lift, as are Newton's equations. Bernoulli's equation can be used to explain lift, but I believe some do not believe it to be the best explanation. Just because something fits doesn't mean it's true: Newton's Laws of gravity have been shown to be wrong, although they work for most of the observable universe. Boyle's law for gases is not true either, though it works for all conditions on earth.

In any event, gravity is yet another such objectively quantifiable and verifiable fact...Works every time, no counter-examples of where and when it doesn't....How it mechanically works is still theory.

Same thing with evolution. It has not been disproven. Even ID at it's best only claims that the ToE is inadequate to explain some things, but the IDers have never proven this. Not knowing precisely how something could have occurred does not mean the theory is disproven...they would have to prove that it could NOT have occurred through Evolution, and they have failed so far and have certainly not advanced any other testable theories.

 

[konradv]

Changes required to reduce global warming require expansion in government cost and control which is in direct conflict with the aims of Conservatives to reduce the size of government. Conservatives cannot accept global warming regardless of the scientific evidence, because it would threaten their goal of shrinking government.

Changes required to (reputedly) reduce Goebbels warming require expansion in government cost and control, which is in direct alignment with the political agendas of socialists and other assorted totalitarians across the globe.

Socialists cannot accept the possibility that Goebbels warming is an elaborate pseudo-scientific hoax, because it would threaten their goal of total authoritarian central control over everyone and everything.

Cuts both ways, Scooter.

When a large segment of our society rejects scientific knowledge because it conflicts with religious, political ideology, or economic realities, then we have a very big problem.

Ain't irony a bitch?

How is that irony? Think you need a better dictionary. What you're describing is more accurately defined as 'stupidity'. You give no evidence, just ramblings about "Goebbels" and "hoaxes". That's not evidence and it's certainly not irony of any sort.

 

[Oddball]

What evidence would you accept, numbnutz?

 

[konradv]

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.

Quite right, but you're the one with the fungible meanings. 'Theory' has a VERY DEFINITE meaning in scientific parlance and it's the skeptics that are trying to change that meaning to something like 'guess'.

 

[daveman]

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!

If you object to being called a liar, quit lying.

Dumbass.

 

[Oddball]

Quite right, but you're the one with the fungible meanings. 'Theory' has a VERY DEFINITE meaning in scientific parlance and it's the skeptics that are trying to change that meaning to something like 'guess'.

Right....But I'm not the one trying to pass off an elaborate pseudo-scientific hoax as a theory.

At least evolution is a theory...Goebbels warming is an outright hoax....Which explains why the hoaxers have changed the semantics from "skeptic" to "denier".

 

[daveman]

]Weather data proves the last decade was the hottest on record,[/B] 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.

How many decades are NOT on record?

Most of them.

 

[daveman]

Changes required to reduce global warming require expansion in government cost and control which is in direct conflict with the aims of Conservatives to reduce the size of government. Conservatives cannot accept global warming regardless of the scientific evidence, because it would threaten their goal of shrinking government.

Changes required to (reputedly) reduce Goebbels warming require expansion in government cost and control, which is in direct alignment with the political agendas of socialists and other assorted totalitarians across the globe.

Socialists cannot accept the possibility that Goebbels warming is an elaborate pseudo-scientific hoax, because it would threaten their goal of total authoritarian central control over everyone and everything.

Cuts both ways, Scooter.

When a large segment of our society rejects scientific knowledge because it conflicts with religious, political ideology, or economic realities, then we have a very big problem.

Ain't irony a bitch?

"You must spread some Reputation around, etc."