The Death of Real Science

[edthecynic]

Why, EdattheClinic, don't you recognize left wing spin when you see it?

You should, as you indulge in it so often...

Either you are ignorant of the eugenics movement, and how deeply Shaw was involved, or you are lying to defend one of your idols.

Since the 'lying' label has been co-opted by your side, I'll accept that you are ignorant.
... Blah, blah, blah...

You can't deny that you were completely ignorant of the difference between Shavian Eugenics and any other kind of eugenics, which is why you swallowed the CON$ervoFascist crapaganda whole, and being too dishonest to admit your ignorance you choose to parrot more Right-wing crap rather than admit the truth.

Again, SHAVIAN Eugenics has nothing to do with state forced breeding, or death chambers but the choices women make in whom they mate with.
Anyone who knows anything about Shaw would have known this and IMMEDIATELY seen through the CON$ervoFascist lies you fell for. You pretend to be a pompous know-it-all, but instead you invariably expose your complete ignorance. You are just too stupid to realize it. To a moron like you, if the word "eugenics" is used then it must all be the same.

Now, EdintheAttic, I think it is an infraction to alter another posters comments, and state that as a quote...
you should correct your alteration of "... Blah, blah, blah..." and use my complete quote...

Is there some reason you are afraid to do so?


Could it be that you actually comprehended my essay, and now see the evil side of GB Shaw, that is that he was entirely behind the wholesale slaughter of folks - human beings- with whose life choices he did not agree...and now you are embarrassed to have the name of a psychopath in your sig??

You may actually have a conscience???

Why, I do declare...

Please don't cry, little girl!

Just like your bringing up Shaw because you desperately had to change the subject from the fact that you could show no "competing measurements," you brought up Wells, Holmes, etc., to change the subject away from your complete ignorance of the fact that SHAVIAN Eugenics has nothing to do with the state or death chambers propaganda you we stupid enough to swallow. You pulled this same crap on the other thread before you cut and ran. Shaw was a Fabian who believed human beings would slowly and NATURALLY tend toward biological improvement, and he was well known to be against any state manipulation to achieve that end. That is why it is so OBVIOUS that you have never actually read Shaw and know absolutely nothing about him.

All you have is Shaw's satirical quotes taken out of their satirical context by dishonest CON$ervoFascist quote-miners who feed them to ignorant people gullible enough to swallow them. Since your whole act is arrogant condescension, you can't admit you were an ignorant enough know-it-all to not only swallow it whole but also stupid enough to parrot it in public. Therefore your blah, blah, blah diversion.

I will never see women freely choosing their mates to produce what they hope to be superior children as something evil enough to condemn Shaw for, as you do. Obviously you support the evil of forcing women to breed according to the demands of others since you are so totally against SAHVIAN Eugenics.

Have you no conscience?!!!

 

[geauxtohell]

In an almost forgotten time, prior to the ascendancy of modern liberalism, one could equate the term ‘science’ with ‘objective.’
Alas, this is no longer true. The ‘new world’ replaces objectivity with a malleable version of truth, of science, that conforms to a political ideology.

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

I think it's a little silly to go all "the sky is falling" simply because you disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming.

However, as long as the scientific method is preserved, real science will plug along as it always has in the face of the truths it presents both convenient and inconvenient.

This is why so many people got up in arms about "intelligent design". If you want to talk about an assault on science for the sake of political expediency, that is a better example.

 

[Gadawg73]

My son attends college. In his history class the teacher talks about how global warming is a liberal conspiracy.

 

[Oddball]

In an almost forgotten time, prior to the ascendancy of modern liberalism, one could equate the term ‘science’ with ‘objective.’
Alas, this is no longer true. The ‘new world’ replaces objectivity with a malleable version of truth, of science, that conforms to a political ideology.

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

I think it's a little silly to go all "the sky is falling" simply because you disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming.

However, as long as the scientific method is preserved, real science will plug along as it always has in the face of the truths it presents both convenient and inconvenient.

Does this "scientific method" and "real science" also consist of blacklisting of people who don't throw in with the orthodoxy?

 

[PoliticalChic]

In an almost forgotten time, prior to the ascendancy of modern liberalism, one could equate the term ‘science’ with ‘objective.’
Alas, this is no longer true. The ‘new world’ replaces objectivity with a malleable version of truth, of science, that conforms to a political ideology.

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

I think it's a little silly to go all "the sky is falling" simply because you disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming.

However, as long as the scientific method is preserved, real science will plug along as it always has in the face of the truths it presents both convenient and inconvenient.

This is why so many people got up in arms about "intelligent design". If you want to talk about an assault on science for the sake of political expediency, that is a better example.

1. "...scientific consensus on global warming."
There is no such consensus, and the term consensus itself is used in social science, not actual science.

2. You would reflect a greater degree of learning if you would restrict your posts to terms that you understand.
That would obviate your use of the " scientific method ."

3. For your edification:

1.) State The Problem

2.) Gather information

3.) Form a hypothesis

4.) test the hypothesis

5.) analyze data

6.) draw conclusion

Now, what do you notice is the final step?
Right, the conclusion.

4. As I have documented, the AGW crowd has decided that conclusion belongs at the beginning....
Foolish?
Corrupt?
Or simply a time-saver that you find consistent with your view of wisdom?
I thought so.

5. From the OP:
In his own words, published in the UK Guardian, Professor Hulme, tells the world that in post-normal science we cannot wait to prove global warming, but must ‘trade normal truth for influence’ and must ‘recognize the social limits of their truth seeking.’

6. Still calling this 'science'?

 

[geauxtohell]

My son attends college. In his history class the teacher talks about how global warming is a liberal conspiracy.

Because when I want opinion on scientific matters, I'll always turn to a history professor.

 

[geauxtohell]

Does this "scientific method" and "real science" also consist of blacklisting of people who don't throw in with the orthodoxy?

Whose been blacklisted and how (i.e. define "blacklist").

Frankly, global climate change is not really something that, scientifically speaking, interests me. I was much more interested in intelligent design. I just understand biology better. However, in matters of science I go with the consensus. Can that be wrong? Absolutely. However, more often than not it's correct.

The burden of proof is on those who challenge the consensus. Simply challenging consensus shouldn't result in censure. That's the antithesis of science. However, sloppy methodology, academic dishonesty, or other matters should be enough to deny tenure or what not. Furthermore, if someone's work isn't getting peer reviewed or published it might not have anything to do with some conspiracy. It just might not be good work. That's also how the method works too.

 

[geauxtohell]

1. "...scientific consensus on global warming."
There is no such consensus, and the term consensus itself is used in social science, not actual science.

That's absurd. A consensus isn't some discrete thing that has to be articulated. It's simply the ability of a majority of scientists to analyze the data and come to an agreement. Consensus also doesn't equate to "can't be challenged".

2. You would reflect a greater degree of learning if you would restrict your posts to terms that you understand.
That would obviate your use of the " scientific method ."

Oh lord. Is this when a liberal arts wonk lectures me on not understanding what the scientific method really is? Do you have any formal training in a scientific field? Or are you just going to bastardize other OPED pieces?

3. For your edification:

1.) State The Problem

2.) Gather information

3.) Form a hypothesis

4.) test the hypothesis

5.) analyze data

6.) draw conclusion

Now, what do you notice is the final step?
Right, the conclusion.

4. As I have documented, the AGW crowd has decided that conclusion belongs at the beginning....
Foolish?
Corrupt?
Or simply a time-saver that you find consistent with your view of wisdom?
I thought so.

Again, you assertions revolve around your opinion on the matter. Like I said, if you want to take the political football that is Global Warming and the fact that you think there is some sort of top secret conspiracy by the majority of scientists in the field and the scientific method had been trashed. Get down with your hyperbole. However, you look a little silly. You can no more than prove that thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed and published papers started first with the conclusion than I can prove the center of Jupiter is a large diamond.

However, I applaud your new found interest in preserving the scientific method.

Where were you when the jackasses on the evangelical right were telling us that a theory that has no workable null hypothesis and can't be tested (i.e. intelligent design) was an equivalent theory to evolution?
5. From the OP:
In his own words, published in the UK Guardian, Professor Hulme, tells the world that in post-normal science we cannot wait to prove global warming, but must ‘trade normal truth for influence’ and must ‘recognize the social limits of their truth seeking.’

6. Still calling this 'science'?[/QUOTE]

 

[Oddball]

Does this "scientific method" and "real science" also consist of blacklisting of people who don't throw in with the orthodoxy?

Whose been blacklisted and how (i.e. define "blacklist").

Frankly, global climate change is not really something that, scientifically speaking, interests me. I was much more interested in intelligent design. I just understand biology better. However, in matters of science I go with the consensus. Can that be wrong? Absolutely. However, more often than not it's correct.

The burden of proof is on those who challenge the consensus. Simply challenging consensus shouldn't result in censure. That's the antithesis of science. However, sloppy methodology, academic dishonesty, or other matters should be enough to deny tenure or what not. Furthermore, if someone's work isn't getting peer reviewed or published it might not have anything to do with some conspiracy. It just might not be good work. That's also how the method works too.

"Consensus" isn't science....It's politics.

I don't need no stinkin' "consensus" to show that water runs downhill or that rising warm moist air into cooler air forms cumulus clouds....Those things can be proven all day long, with physically verifiable results, first time every time.

As for that blacklist, here ya go:

Most cited authors on climate change

 

[geauxtohell]

Does this "scientific method" and "real science" also consist of blacklisting of people who don't throw in with the orthodoxy?

Whose been blacklisted and how (i.e. define "blacklist").

Frankly, global climate change is not really something that, scientifically speaking, interests me. I was much more interested in intelligent design. I just understand biology better. However, in matters of science I go with the consensus. Can that be wrong? Absolutely. However, more often than not it's correct.

The burden of proof is on those who challenge the consensus. Simply challenging consensus shouldn't result in censure. That's the antithesis of science. However, sloppy methodology, academic dishonesty, or other matters should be enough to deny tenure or what not. Furthermore, if someone's work isn't getting peer reviewed or published it might not have anything to do with some conspiracy. It just might not be good work. That's also how the method works too.

"Consensus" isn't science....It's politics.

I don't need no stinkin' "consensus" to show that water runs downhill or that rising warm moist air into cooler air forms cumulus clouds....Those things can be proven all day long, with physically verifiable results, first time every time.

As for that blacklist, here ya go:

Most cited authors on climate change

You can cite the most obvious occurrences in the natural sciences, but most issues in science are much more complicated. We know that gravity exists. We expect that it will work 100% of the time. However, within the actual theory of gravity it's much more complicated than that.

As for consensus, it's basically a way of saying that scientists agree on an issue after preponderance of the evidence. I hardly see why that is such an evil concept, other than the fact that it's inconvenient for what you personally believe. It also doesn't change the basic facts of the matter. Either this is all a large conspiracy or the vast majority of scientists are acting in good faith. I'll go with Occam's Razor.

A consensus is also not irrefutable. If a human fossil was discovered deep enough on the ground, it would toss the scientific consensus about evolution on it's head.

As for the blacklist, I only saw a list of people who are skeptical on the matter. I would expect that and it seems to negate your and the OP's claims that "scientific consensus" doesn't allow for skepticism.

I didn't see how any of those people had been adversely affected by their views.

 

[Oddball]

You can either prove your "science" or you can't. Barring that, all you have is a theory.

All the warmist cabal has is a theory, and a pretty shaky one at that....And they know it. Otherwise, they wouldn't be resorting to the tactics of blacklisting, evading FOIA requests, making up data for places where no collection points exist, using opinion pieces as "proof", stacking polls with respondents most likely to give the answers they're looking for, etcetera.

If this was Richard Nixon, y'all would be messing your pants, and rightly so.

 

[geauxtohell]

You can either prove your "science" or you can't. Barring that, all you have is a theory.

Dude, this statement makes me dubious. You can either support your hypothesis or not. A theory means that the larger concept is highly supported by all the data and evidence that has been proposed to date. In the biological sciences, you can do no better than to be a "theory". Admittedly, I am not a geologists and am less familiar with the semantics around global warming.

All the warmist cabal has is a theory, and a pretty shaky one at that....And they know it. Otherwise, they wouldn't be resorting to the tactics of blacklisting, evading FOIA requests, making up data for places where no collection points exist, using opinion pieces as "proof", stacking polls with respondents most likely to give the answers they're looking for, etcetera.

If this was Richard Nixon, y'all would be messing your pants, and rightly so.

Who has been blacklisted? I agree that opinion pieces are useless in science. However, there is plenty of peer-reviewed and published documents that support the consensus. (Far more than the contrary).

You can't whitewash that and scientists are always eager to disprove another person's name. That is how people make their names. Any scientist that could disprove evolution and offer a better theory would accept their prize at Stockholm and be as famous as Darwin.

Either you think this is a huge conspiracy by all the scientists that adhere to global warming or accept that people are acting in good faith.

Like I said, I know what you believe, I choose to go with Occam's razor.

 

[IanC]

Who has been blacklisted? I agree that opinion pieces are useless in science. However, there is plenty of peer-reviewed and published documents that support the consensus. (Far more than the contrary).

you haven't been following Climategate. one of the main points is that there has been abuse of the peer review system.

and your opinion of science in general may be outdated. it used to be about exploring the edges of human knowledge but now it is more about how to attract funding.

 

[geauxtohell]

Who has been blacklisted? I agree that opinion pieces are useless in science. However, there is plenty of peer-reviewed and published documents that support the consensus. (Far more than the contrary).

you haven't been following Climategate. one of the main points is that there has been abuse of the peer review system.

and your opinion of science in general may be outdated. it used to be about exploring the edges of human knowledge but now it is more about how to attract funding.

As for peer review, the "burden of proof" there seems to be a lot of hyperbole and claims and not a lot of proof. It seems more convenient that people are bitter about not being published. You and I know that if something was convincing enough, there is no way to keep it from being published. As Christ said: "the stones would scream it."

It seems less probable that the vast majority of scientists are engaged in a conspiracy and more probable that the skeptics are bitter that their theories aren't gaining instant attention. However, it should be pointed out too, that scientists are also for sale. Big tobacco bought and paid for physicians to dispute what we know know to be a fact: smoking is oncogenic (among a plethora of other things). I believe some of the problems that the skeptics have is that the perception is that they are on the corporate dole.

So accusations of crooking the data for money runs both ways.

As for my views on science it is this: everything should be "evidence based" and the scientific method should be followed.

That concept is about as timeless as the law.

 

[Oddball]

Who has been blacklisted? I agree that opinion pieces are useless in science. However, there is plenty of peer-reviewed and published documents that support the consensus. (Far more than the contrary).

The people in the link I provided have been blacklisted....How 'bout going back to the link and clicking on the home page of the blogger?

Ask yourself, what would be the motivation of an AGW insider be to list alllll those names, if not to use as a comprehensive listing for others of his ilk to dismiss out-of-hand?

As for peer review...It's now a dead letter.

Either you think this is a huge conspiracy by all the scientists that adhere to global warming or accept that people are acting in good faith.

Like I said, I know what you believe, I choose to go with Occam's razor.

The conspiracy to shut down skeptics has been outed...It's conspiracy fact.

What would Occam say were he considering people who had faked data, evaded disclosure, colluded to exclude contrary data, and contrived polls with outlandishly ludicrous results?

 

[geauxtohell]

Who has been blacklisted? I agree that opinion pieces are useless in science. However, there is plenty of peer-reviewed and published documents that support the consensus. (Far more than the contrary).

The people in the link I provided have been blacklisted....How 'bout going back to the link and clicking on the home page of the blogger?

Ask yourself, what would be the motivation of an AGW insider be to list alllll those names, if not to use as a comprehensive listing for others of his ilk to dismiss out-of-hand?

As for peer review...It's now a dead letter.

Either you think this is a huge conspiracy by all the scientists that adhere to global warming or accept that people are acting in good faith.

Like I said, I know what you believe, I choose to go with Occam's razor.

The conspiracy to shut down skeptics has been outed...It's conspiracy fact.

What would Occam say were he considering people who had faked data, evaded disclosure, colluded to exclude contrary data, and contrived polls with outlandishly ludicrous results?

I was under the assumption you'd hand me to proper link, but I'll go and check it out.

As for saying peer review is a "dead letter" I'll refer to my original post on the matter. It's silly to use the political football of GW to comment on the modern state of scientific progress at large.

Peer review and scientific progress marches on despite those of you that are (ironically) screaming "the sky is falling!".


*Edit*

Can you just give me the exact link? I can't find any evidence of a "blacklist" on the page (meaning repercussions for being a skeptic), but it's pretty sloppy so I might be missing it.

 

[Oddball]

I'm not the one screaming that the sky is falling...The ones relying on the political circle jerk known as "peer review" are.

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm not the one screaming that the sky is falling...The ones relying on the political circle jerk known as "peer review" are.

Oh. Okay.

Again, scientific progress is going to march on regardless of how much the findings piss you guys off.

 

[Oddball]

Anthropogenic gullible warming junk "science" isn't about progress....It's about stifling and centrally controlling any and all economic progress.

They're the medieval Earth-is-the-center-of-the-universe orthodoxy, only hiding in a different "church".

 

[Oddball]