PDA

View Full Version : APP - Science Denial on the Rise



FUCK THE POLICE
01-10-2010, 02:10 AM
Science Denial on the Rise (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-newton/science-denial-on-the-ris_b_413848.html)








From evolution to global warming to vaccines, science is under assault from denialists--those who dismiss well-tested scientific knowledge as merely one of many competing ideologies. Science denial goes beyond skeptical questioning to attack the legitimacy of science itself.
Recent foment over stolen e-mails from a British research group inspired an American creationist organization to pronounce that "a cabal of leading scientists, politicians, and media" has sought to "professionally destroy scientists who express skepticism" about climate change. The Discovery Institute usually reserves this kind of over-the-top language to attack evolution, so it was remarkable to see it branch out to climate-change denial.
Despite such misleading hyperbole, science is meritocratic. Once you achieve a minimum level of education and competence, you can participate, ask a challenging question of even the most respected scientist, or submit papers to scientific journals, where research is judged by the data and methodology. Esteemed scientists face relentless criticism. This is how science works.
Even when a scientific consensus based on evidence emerges--as it has for evolution and climate change--there is opportunity for dissent. As the great physicist Richard Feynman noted, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
Science requires conclusions about how nature works to be rooted in evidence-based testing. Sometimes progress is slow. But through a difficult and often frustrating process, we learn more about the world.
Science denialism works differently. Creationists are unmoved by the wealth of fossil, molecular, and anatomical evidence for evolution. Global-warming denialists are unimpressed by mountains of climate data. Denialists ignore overwhelming evidence, focusing instead on a few hoaxes, such as Piltdown Man, or a few stolen e-mails. For denialists, opinion polls and talk radio are more important than thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles.
Denialists often appeal to the ideal of fairness, arguing schools should "teach the controversy" and address "evidence for and against" science, as in then-Sen. Rick Santorum's proposed amendment to the No Child Left Behind bill in 2001. But they apply the ideal selectively to science they dislike: evolution, climate change, vaccines. They hope to cloak themselves in the mantle of science without being restricted by its requirements.
If denialists had evidence disproving global warming or evolution, they could submit it to scientific conferences and journals, inviting analysis by scientists. But, knowing their arguments don't hold water, they spread misinformation in arenas not subject to expert scrutiny: mass-market books, newspapers, talk radio, and blogs.
Understanding science has never been more important than it is today. Critical issues such as climate change and the threat of newly evolved flu strains demand greater scientific literacy among the public and politicians. As long as scientists must squander their time defending their work from denialism, we will fall behind on our fundamental responsibilities.
Steven Newton is a project director for the National Center for Science Education, www.ncse.com. He can be reached at newton@ncse.com.

PostmodernProphet
01-10-2010, 07:24 AM
science denial is only on the rise because liberals have begun to engage in the practice......human caused global warming, abiogenesis, abortion.....all liberal hot buttons where emotions rank higher than scientific observation.......

FUCK THE POLICE
01-10-2010, 06:43 PM
science denial is only on the rise because liberals have begun to engage in the practice......human caused global warming, abiogenesis, abortion.....all liberal hot buttons where emotions rank higher than scientific observation.......

Doublespeak in action. Label something as the exact opposite of what it is.

PostmodernProphet
01-10-2010, 08:49 PM
Doublespeak in action. Label something as the exact opposite of what it is. Science deniers need to be put in a Gulag far away from civilized society.

sweet of you to offer, but we wouldn't want to put you to that much discomfort....

/MSG/
01-10-2010, 10:16 PM
Doublespeak in action. Label something as the exact opposite of what it is. Science deniers need to be put in a Gulag far away from civilized society.

You do so much to harm your own cause. That's why I stopped arguing against you in this stuff. By leaving you to your own accord, you only legitimize your detractors and hamper your own movement.

Mott the Hoople
01-17-2010, 07:51 AM
science denial is only on the rise because liberals have begun to engage in the practice......human caused global warming, abiogenesis, abortion.....all liberal hot buttons where emotions rank higher than scientific observation.......No. Science denial in America is on the increase because wingnut reactionaries, like you, have #1, never taken the time to learn science (and you've demonstrated that time and time again) and #2 you're determined to practice your own interpretation of science called "Ostrich Science".

Marginalzing those who have actually taken the time and dedication and made the effort to actually study and learn science as "liberals" is.....well.....beyond pathetic.

Hermes Thoth
01-17-2010, 07:55 AM
life beginning at conception is a scientific fact of biology, yet you libs deny it.

That's science denial right there.

Mott the Hoople
01-17-2010, 08:09 AM
life beginning at conception is a scientific fact of biology, yet you libs deny it.

That's science denial right there.They do, do they? Then please, explain to me. By what criteria have you determined that life begins at conception? Because someone told you so? Please educate this liberal who you've all ready decided doesn't believe live begins at conception.

Hermes Thoth
01-17-2010, 08:10 AM
They do, do they? Then please, explain to me. By what criteria have you determined that life begins at conception? Because someone told you so? Please educate this liberal who you've all ready decided doesn't believe live begins at conception.

Do you believe life begins at conception?

Mott the Hoople
01-17-2010, 08:12 AM
Do you believe life begins at conception?Of course I do. It's an established biological fact. Whoops, doesn't that just contradict your comment? Are you going to even bother to answer my question? By what criteria have you determined that life begins at conception?

Hermes Thoth
01-17-2010, 08:15 AM
Of course I do. It's an established biological fact. Whoops, doesn't that just contradict your comment? Are you going to even bother to answer my question? By what criteria have you determined that life begins at conception?

They're similar to yours I'd wager. I shan't go into it. I just don't know why you're being an arguementative dick when we agree.

You're a scientifically literate lib; you get a cookie.

It's generally the case, however, that an abortion proselytizing lib considers the notion that life begins at conception to be a case of irrational rightwing religiousity. You know that's true.

Hermes Thoth
01-17-2010, 08:25 AM
Oh. and Libs also mindlesssly believe Anthropogenic Global Warming, even though the scientists were outed as liars and obfuscators of truth.

Mott the Hoople
01-17-2010, 08:27 AM
They're similar to yours I'd wager. I shan't go into it. I just don't know why you're being an arguementative dick when we agree.

You're a scientifically literate lib; you get a cookie.

It's generally the case, however, that an abortion proselytizing lib considers the notion that life begins at conception to be a case of irrational rightwing religiousity. You know that's true.Well how will I know that if you don't answer my question? I want to see if you actually know the scientific criteria or your just basing your comment on "because someone said so".

Mott the Hoople
01-17-2010, 08:29 AM
Oh. and Libs also mindlesssly believe Anthropogenic Global Warming, even though the scientists were outed as liars and obfuscators of truth.That's anthropogenic climactic change. Please try to use the correct scientific terminology and not political ones.

Hermes Thoth
01-17-2010, 09:20 AM
That's anthropogenic climactic change. Please try to use the correct scientific terminology and not political ones.

You're nit picking aside, those scientists were outed for being liars and hacks trying to hide their faulty methods and wrong conclusions, and actively trying to suppress and marginalize scientists who disagree with their crap science.

THEY chose politics over science.

Hermes Thoth
01-17-2010, 09:29 AM
To conclude, science denial is on the rise, but mostly by statists who distort the truth to empower more government thievery and fascist control.

Mott the Hoople
01-17-2010, 09:31 AM
To conclude, science denial is on the rise, but mostly by statists who distort the truth to empower more government thievery and fascist control.You're not going to answer my question, are you?

Hermes Thoth
01-17-2010, 10:32 AM
You're not going to answer my question, are you?

What question is that?

tinfoil
01-17-2010, 12:59 PM
They do, do they? Then please, explain to me. By what criteria have you determined that life begins at conception? Because someone told you so? Please educate this liberal who you've all ready decided doesn't believe live begins at conception.

How fucking stupid is this jackass?

Life obviously begins when conception takes place and the process of LIFE begins. There's no other way to describe it.

Mott the Hoople
01-17-2010, 01:39 PM
How fucking stupid is this jackass?

Life obviously begins when conception takes place and the process of LIFE begins. There's no other way to describe it.Really? And by what scientific criteria? Please amaze me with your scientific acumen.

Mott the Hoople
01-17-2010, 01:41 PM
What question is that?
What scientific criteria are you using to determine that life begins at conception?

tinfoil
01-17-2010, 01:42 PM
Really? And by what scientific criteria? Please amaze me with your scientific acumen.

let's start here
Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes from those which do not.


Now we can move to this

Fertilization (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy), is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism. In animals, the process involves a sperm fusing with an ovum, which eventually leads to the development of an embryo. Depending on the animal species, the process can occur within the body of the female in internal fertilisation, or outside in the case of external fertilisation

The entire process of development of new individuals is called procreation, the act of species reproduction.

tinfoil
01-17-2010, 01:45 PM
seriously, what else begins at conception? Death?

think about your question for a second. It's absolutely retarded. Next, you'll ask what scientific proof I have that water is wet.

tinfoil
01-17-2010, 01:48 PM
LOL I found your source of knowledge!
http://whenlifebegins.com/

Notice the first one is the only scientific measure

tinfoil
01-17-2010, 01:51 PM
here's an even better link to make you look like the fool you are


http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/resources/white-papers/351-white-paper

Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a reasoned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research. This article considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism—i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.”

Mott the Hoople
01-17-2010, 02:18 PM
let's start here
Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes from those which do not.


Now we can move to this

Fertilization (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy), is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism. In animals, the process involves a sperm fusing with an ovum, which eventually leads to the development of an embryo. Depending on the animal species, the process can occur within the body of the female in internal fertilisation, or outside in the case of external fertilisation

The entire process of development of new individuals is called procreation, the act of species reproduction.
Just what I thought. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're about as informed on this issue as you are on climate change.

No mammalian zygote, embryo or fetus meets the definition you just provided. None of those have "self sustaining biological processes". They are all utterly biologically dependent on their host (their mother). By your own ignorant definition life couldn't begin at conception for higher organisms.

The point I'm making here is how you (and Asshat) are making an argument from ignorance. You're taking a rock ribbed stance on science establishing that life begins at conception and you don't even fucking know why?

Well I'll explain it to you and then maybe then next time you pop off at the mouth on the subject you won't come off as such a complete and total ignoramus on the subject.

First let us propose a question to observe. Does a fertilized zygot/embryo/fetus demonstrate the properties of life? To make that determination first let us list what those properties of life are so that we can test this question as a hypothesis.

What are the properties of life then?

1) Chemical uniqueness. Living systems demonstrate a unique and complex molecular organization.
2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Living systems demonstrate a unique and complex hierarchical organization.
3) Reproduction. Living systems can reproduce themselves.
4) Possession of a genetic program. A genetic program provides for the expression of inheritance.
5) Metabolism. Living organisms maintain themselves by obtaining nutrients from their environments.
6) Development. All organisms pass through a characteristic life cycle.
7) Environmental reaction. All animals interact with their environment.

So let us use these properties of life to test our hypothesis. Does a zygote, fetus, embryo exhibit these properties of life? If they do then one can conclude based on empirical observation that life begins at conception.

1) Chemical Uniqueness. Fertilized eggs possess their own unique DNA from conception.
2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. The most basic unit in the biological hierarchy is the cell. The cell holds the properties of living organisms, and cells can be manipulated in the laboratory and can be reproduced, whereas nonliving elements cannot. Therefore, the fertilized egg would meet this criteria, although it would be a more basic unit of the biological hierarchy.
3) Reproduction. The zygote possesses two different methods of reproduction: cell reproduction and twinning. Twinning is a form of asexual reproduction, which can occur after conception.
4) Possession of a genetic program. From conception, the fertilized egg has its own unique genetic code. The 46 chromosomes present at conception provide all of thegenetic information that will ever be needed.
5) Metabolism. From conception, the fertilized egg meets the requirement of metabolism. It is able to convert chemical energy into mechanical or heat energy.
6) Development. Development describes the characteristic changes that an organism undergoes from its origin (usually the fertilization of the egg by sperm) to its final adult form. Thus, although the fertilized egg will take on different forms throughout its life cycle, the development of life begins at conception.
7) Environmental interaction. The entity in the womb interacts with its environment in many ways. Kicking and jumping are both examples. In addition, research has shown that the fetus can be soothed by music and can recognize the voice of its mother.

The fertilized egg, from the moment of conception, meets each of the properties that have been found to determine if an organism can be classified as living. Based on testing the stated hypothesis against these definitions, it can be scientifically concluded that life begins at conception.

So Tinhead, the next time you're going to quote science as defending a particular point, why don't you try and actually know what that science is?

Hermes Thoth
01-17-2010, 02:23 PM
By your own ignorant definition life couldn't begin at conception for higher organisms.







I stopped reading after this stupid sentence.

You're a blithering fool, mott.

Mott the Hoople
01-17-2010, 02:35 PM
I stopped reading after this stupid sentence.

You're a blithering fool, mott.To bad. Maybe you should have read the rest. You'd learn some real science for a change.

If you're going to quote science to defend your point Asshat, then you should know what that science is. Don't you find it embarrassing that a so called "Liberal" can defend your point better than you can?

Cancel 2016.2
01-17-2010, 02:51 PM
That's anthropogenic climactic change. Please try to use the correct scientific terminology and not political ones.

Funny... because is was AGW for years... until of course the earth stopped warming... THEN it suddenly became 'climate change'.

AGW IS the correct scientific terminology. No matter how much the frauds are trying to change it now that they have been exposed for what they are.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-17-2010, 05:04 PM
Funny... because is was AGW for years... until of course the earth stopped warming... THEN it suddenly became 'climate change'.

No one is expecting the world to start cooling because we're pumping massive unprecedented amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. The point your trying to make here doesn't seem to exist.


AGW IS the correct scientific terminology. No matter how much the frauds are trying to change it now that they have been exposed for what they are.

Here we go down into the paranoid rabbit hole of the deniers again.

tinfoil
01-17-2010, 05:24 PM
Just what I thought. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're about as informed on this issue as you are on climate change.

No mammalian zygote, embryo or fetus meets the definition you just provided. None of those have "self sustaining biological processes". They are all utterly biologically dependent on their host (their mother). By your own ignorant definition life couldn't begin at conception for higher organisms.

The point I'm making here is how you (and Asshat) are making an argument from ignorance. You're taking a rock ribbed stance on science establishing that life begins at conception and you don't even fucking know why?

Well I'll explain it to you and then maybe then next time you pop off at the mouth on the subject you won't come off as such a complete and total ignoramus on the subject.

First let us propose a question to observe. Does a fertilized zygot/embryo/fetus demonstrate the properties of life? To make that determination first let us list what those properties of life are so that we can test this question as a hypothesis.

What are the properties of life then?

1) Chemical uniqueness. Living systems demonstrate a unique and complex molecular organization.

It is unique! You lose!


2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Living systems demonstrate a unique and complex hierarchical organization.


WTF? It's alive and growing!Q you lose idiot


3) Reproduction. Living systems can reproduce themselves.
Uhhh dumbass, it will eventually be ablt to reprtoduce once it matures. You lose dumbfuck
4) Possession of a genetic program. A genetic program provides for the expression of inheritance.

Does it not have DNA? You lose again

5) Metabolism. Living organisms maintain themselves by obtaining nutrients from their environments.

Yep, and in this case, the environment is the womb. WTF is wrong with your fucking idiot brain?

6) Development. All organisms pass through a characteristic life cycle.

YEP
7) Environmental reaction. All animals interact with their environment.
YEP

WTF are you talking about?

So let us use these properties of life to test our hypothesis. Does a zygote, fetus, embryo exhibit these properties of life? If they do then one can conclude based on empirical observation that life begins at conception.

1) Chemical Uniqueness. Fertilized eggs possess their own unique DNA from conception.
2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. The most basic unit in the biological hierarchy is the cell. The cell holds the properties of living organisms, and cells can be manipulated in the laboratory and can be reproduced, whereas nonliving elements cannot. Therefore, the fertilized egg would meet this criteria, although it would be a more basic unit of the biological hierarchy.
3) Reproduction. The zygote possesses two different methods of reproduction: cell reproduction and twinning. Twinning is a form of asexual reproduction, which can occur after conception.
4) Possession of a genetic program. From conception, the fertilized egg has its own unique genetic code. The 46 chromosomes present at conception provide all of thegenetic information that will ever be needed.
5) Metabolism. From conception, the fertilized egg meets the requirement of metabolism. It is able to convert chemical energy into mechanical or heat energy.
6) Development. Development describes the characteristic changes that an organism undergoes from its origin (usually the fertilization of the egg by sperm) to its final adult form. Thus, although the fertilized egg will take on different forms throughout its life cycle, the development of life begins at conception.
7) Environmental interaction. The entity in the womb interacts with its environment in many ways. Kicking and jumping are both examples. In addition, research has shown that the fetus can be soothed by music and can recognize the voice of its mother.

The fertilized egg, from the moment of conception, meets each of the properties that have been found to determine if an organism can be classified as living. Based on testing the stated hypothesis against these definitions, it can be scientifically concluded that life begins at conception.

So Tinhead, the next time you're going to quote science as defending a particular point, why don't you try and actually know what that science is?

WTF was the point of your post?

Cancel 2016.2
01-17-2010, 05:33 PM
No one is expecting the world to start cooling because we're pumping massive unprecedented amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. The point your trying to make here doesn't seem to exist.

You appear to have created a point that I did not make. My only point is that up until the past couple of years... it has been known as AGW. NOT the new and improved 'climate change' that the frauds are using now.




Here we go down into the paranoid rabbit hole of the deniers again.

No paranoid rabbit hole. REAL scientists do not try to hide their data. REAL scientists put forth all of their raw data, all of their calculations and then their peers look to see if their are any holes in their argument. When scientists try to HIDE their data... there really is only one conclusion to be reached. They KNOW it won't hold up to scrutiny.

Nice try trollboy.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-17-2010, 05:38 PM
You appear to have created a point that I did not make. My only point is that up until the past couple of years... it has been known as AGW. NOT the new and improved 'climate change' that the frauds are using now.


http://www.ethiosun.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/paranoia-Melese-Zenawi.gif



No paranoid rabbit hole. REAL scientists do not try to hide their data. REAL scientists put forth all of their raw data, all of their calculations and then their peers look to see if their are any holes in their argument. When scientists try to HIDE their data... there really is only one conclusion to be reached. They KNOW it won't hold up to scrutiny.

Nice try trollboy.

Like you would know anything about standard scientific operating procedure. Again, this is the type of paranoid conspiratorial nonsense that the deniers thrive on. This is a belief, just like the moon hoax, just like Intelligent design, that is completely and totally contradictory to the evidence and irrational.

tinfoil
01-17-2010, 05:55 PM
You appear to have created a point that I did not make. My only point is that up until the past couple of years... it has been known as AGW. NOT the new and improved 'climate change' that the frauds are using now.





No paranoid rabbit hole. REAL scientists do not try to hide their data. REAL scientists put forth all of their raw data, all of their calculations and then their peers look to see if their are any holes in their argument. When scientists try to HIDE their data... there really is only one conclusion to be reached. They KNOW it won't hold up to scrutiny.

Nice try trollboy.


I laughed when I read that also.
What is really funny is that, though there is a tiny amount of forcing that human caused emissions can be blamed for, the alarmists tried to claim everything was human induced.

Now they are saying that the natural forcing is masking what was supposed to be dominating the cimate.

It's clear that human CO2 forcing is miniscule

PostmodernProphet
01-17-2010, 05:58 PM
No. Science denial in America is on the increase because wingnut reactionaries, like you, have #1, never taken the time to learn science (and you've demonstrated that time and time again) and #2 you're determined to practice your own interpretation of science called "Ostrich Science".

Marginalzing those who have actually taken the time and dedication and made the effort to actually study and learn science as "liberals" is.....well.....beyond pathetic.

having repeatedly demonstrated that I know more about science than you, I find your post amusing.....

Hermes Thoth
01-17-2010, 06:26 PM
To bad. Maybe you should have read the rest. You'd learn some real science for a change.

If you're going to quote science to defend your point Asshat, then you should know what that science is. Don't you find it embarrassing that a so called "Liberal" can defend your point better than you can?

Don't be stupid.

This thread is about who is denying science. It the libtards like you.

Even though you correctly believe life begins at conceptions, most libtards do not.

That's really the point.

And with AGW, it's the left politicizing science and falsifying data to fearmonger the public to accept a global fascist carbon tax.

Mott the Hoople
01-18-2010, 11:14 AM
WTF was the point of your post?
Try reading the last sentence. Ya'll keep using science to back up your points and you don't even know what that freaken science is.

Mott the Hoople
01-18-2010, 11:15 AM
having repeatedly demonstrated that I know more about science than you, I find your post amusing.....LOL I do too. Next to Dixie you're the most scientifically illiterate poster on this site! LOL

PostmodernProphet
01-18-2010, 01:23 PM
LOL I do too. Next to Dixie you're the most scientifically illiterate poster on this site! LOL

silly boy, nobody here believes that to be true....after all since I arrived in July you have run away from every single debate we have begun......quite simply put, you haven't got what it takes to debate me....

Mott the Hoople
01-18-2010, 02:53 PM
silly boy, nobody here believes that to be true....after all since I arrived in July you have run away from every single debate we have begun......quite simply put, you haven't got what it takes to debate me....Oh please. You're a legend in your own mind. The only one who believes that is you. Hell three fourths of the board was roaring in laughter at how I crushed you in discussions of science. Even our resident PhD level scientist thought you were clueless about science. Hell even Watermark has shown more scientific acumen then you. I'll give you credit though. You're not as clueless as Dixie when it comes to science. Not saying much granted, but it is true.

cancel2 2022
01-18-2010, 05:04 PM
Oh please. You're a legend in your own mind. The only one who believes that is you. Hell three fourths of the board was roaring in laughter at how I crushed you in discussions of science. Even our resident PhD level scientist thought you were clueless about science. Hell even Watermark has shown more scientific acumen then you. I'll give you credit though. You're not as clueless as Dixie when it comes to science. Not saying much granted, but it is true.

Who is the PhD?

Mott the Hoople
01-18-2010, 05:06 PM
Who is the PhD?Thorn.

Cypress
01-18-2010, 06:27 PM
Oh please. You're a legend in your own mind. The only one who believes that is you. Hell three fourths of the board was roaring in laughter at how I crushed you in discussions of science. Even our resident PhD level scientist thought you were clueless about science. Hell even Watermark has shown more scientific acumen then you. I'll give you credit though. You're not as clueless as Dixie when it comes to science. Not saying much granted, but it is true.

Another awesome thread with the armchair science experts and college dropouts lecturing you on the scientific method. I think you and thorn are the only ones I would trust to be qualified and knowledgeable about science. I'd defer to Topspin on stocks, and I'd defer to cawacko on Porn. But Letting a teabagger play with science is like giving dynamite to a baby - the consequences are disasterous.

LOL @ scientists giving all their raw data to peer reviewers. I actually am quite familiar and have first hand experience with scientific peer review, and I'm not aware than handing over all the raw data to peer reviewers is common practice. I've never done it. Peer reviewers don't have time to pour through reams of raw data. Their job, in my experience, is to review your methods, to see if your conclusions are substantiated by the experimental results, make sure your data and results are reproducible, and evaluate if one took into account alternative hypotheses.

There's nothing magical about raw data. Raw data almost always has to be culled, transformed, or discarded depending on the experimental parameters. The most important thing about data is that it's reproducible what was done to cull it or transform it (and why) and its documented where and how it was obtained. This is what peer revewers would and should check for, because a clear documentation of methodology and reproducibility is what the scientific method and peer review strive for.

Hermes Thoth
01-18-2010, 06:40 PM
Another awesome thread with the armchair science experts and college dropouts lecturing you on the scientific method. I think you and thorn are the only ones I would trust to be qualified and knowledgeable about science. I'd defer to Topspin on stocks, and I'd defer to cawacko on Porn. But Letting a teabagger play with science is like giving dynamite to a baby - the consequences are disasterous.

LOL @ scientists giving all their raw data to peer reviewers. I actually am quite familiar and have first hand experience with scientific peer review, and I'm not aware than handing over all the raw data to peer reviewers is common practice. I've never done it. Peer reviewers don't have time to pour through reams of raw data. Their job, in my experience, is to review your methods, to see if your conclusions are substantiated by the experimental results, make sure your data and results are reproducible, and evaluate if one took into account alternative hypotheses.

There's nothing magical about raw data. Raw data almost always has to be culled, transformed, or discarded depending on the experimental parameters. The most important thing about data is that it's reproducible what was done to cull it or transform it (and why) and its documented where and how it was obtained. This is what peer revewers would and should check for, because a clear documentation of methodology and reproducibility is what the scientific method and peer review strive for.


blah blah blah.

Bottom line, the raw data is still necessary for adequate scientific review.

tinfoil
01-18-2010, 07:31 PM
Gotta love crypiss saying raw data doesn't matter and that peer reviewers never ask for data then he goes on to say that peer review makes sure the data is reproducible.

Hilarious!

PostmodernProphet
01-18-2010, 09:27 PM
Oh please. You're a legend in your own mind. The only one who believes that is you. Hell three fourths of the board was roaring in laughter at how I crushed you in discussions of science. Even our resident PhD level scientist thought you were clueless about science. Hell even Watermark has shown more scientific acumen then you. I'll give you credit though. You're not as clueless as Dixie when it comes to science. Not saying much granted, but it is true.
how could you have "crushed" me in debate when you spent none of your time debating and spent all your time bragging that you were so smart you didn't have to debate......since then you've haven't dared respond to any of my posts because you would demonstrate that you actually know fuck all about science......you're all brag with nothing to back it up.....

PostmodernProphet
01-18-2010, 09:34 PM
Another awesome thread with the armchair science experts and college dropouts lecturing you on the scientific method. I think you and thorn are the only ones I would trust to be qualified and knowledgeable about science. I'd defer to Topspin on stocks, and I'd defer to cawacko on Porn. But Letting a teabagger play with science is like giving dynamite to a baby - the consequences are disasterous.

LOL @ scientists giving all their raw data to peer reviewers. I actually am quite familiar and have first hand experience with scientific peer review, and I'm not aware than handing over all the raw data to peer reviewers is common practice. I've never done it. Peer reviewers don't have time to pour through reams of raw data. Their job, in my experience, is to review your methods, to see if your conclusions are substantiated by the experimental results, make sure your data and results are reproducible, and evaluate if one took into account alternative hypotheses.

There's nothing magical about raw data. Raw data almost always has to be culled, transformed, or discarded depending on the experimental parameters. The most important thing about data is that it's reproducible what was done to cull it or transform it (and why) and its documented where and how it was obtained. This is what peer revewers would and should check for, because a clear documentation of methodology and reproducibility is what the scientific method and peer review strive for.

lol....you must be the "three fourths of the board" he was referring to.....I got news for you.....your "ringer" is a fraud.....

Good Luck
01-18-2010, 10:24 PM
The most important thing about data is that it's reproducible what was done to cull it or transform it (and why) and its documented where and how it was obtained. This is what peer revewers would and should check for, because a clear documentation of methodology and reproducibility is what the scientific method and peer review strive for.
And how the hell do you know if their data set is reproducible unless you know what the data set is? If you perform a set of experiments and withhold the results, only giving out your conclusions, how does another scientist know if their experiment is reproducing the same results?

Your argument is pure bullshit.

Hermes Thoth
01-19-2010, 12:10 PM
Gotta love crypiss saying raw data doesn't matter and that peer reviewers never ask for data then he goes on to say that peer review makes sure the data is reproducible.

Hilarious!

Yeah. He has the cognitive abilities of lint.

cancel2 2022
01-19-2010, 04:50 PM
Gotta love crypiss saying raw data doesn't matter and that peer reviewers never ask for data then he goes on to say that peer review makes sure the data is reproducible.

Hilarious!

I consider myself to be a sceptic but I will point out what is happening in Melbourne.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100112/tod-summer-in-an-aussie-city-34c-at-midn-870a197.html

tinfoil
01-19-2010, 05:08 PM
I consider myself to be a sceptic but I will point out what is happening in Melbourne.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100112/tod-summer-in-an-aussie-city-34c-at-midn-870a197.html

I'll remind you that weather isn't the same thing as climate. Austraulia having a heatwave during its summer is hardly news.

Also, the atlantic nultidecadal oscillation (AMO) is currently heading into a negative phase, which historically has been associated with higher than normal temps is the southern hemisphere. When the AMO is positive, there are lower temps found in the southern hemisphere associated with the AMO.

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/recent-drop-in-amo.html

cancel2 2022
01-19-2010, 05:14 PM
I'll remind you that weather isn't the same thing as climate. Austraulia having a heatwave during its summer is hardly news.

Also, the atlantic nultidecadal oscillation (AMO) is currently heading into a negative phase, which historically has been associated with higher than normal temps is the southern hemisphere. When the AMO is positive, there are lower temps found in the southern hemisphere associated with the AMO.

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/recent-drop-in-amo.html

Don't you think it is ironic that you are using the same argument about weather and climate that is stated by AGW espousers?

tinfoil
01-19-2010, 05:41 PM
Don't you think it is ironic that you are using the same argument about weather and climate that is stated by AGW espousers?



LOL it is ironic that every heatwave, including the one you referenced, is used to make the case for warming.

examples:
Australian Heat Wave To Last Six Days, Signaling Global Warming
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1631148/australian_heat_wave_to_last_six_days_signaling_gl obal_warming/index.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x184529
Australian heatwave sign of climate change


I could list dozens more without effort.

So, yes, I do find it ironic, and though I agree with the statement that climate does not equal weather, we all know how weather is used to make the case for warming, so you should take my initial use of the meme to be mocking its use.

Cancel 2016.2
01-21-2010, 09:45 AM
Another awesome thread with the armchair science experts and college dropouts lecturing you on the scientific method. I think you and thorn are the only ones I would trust to be qualified and knowledgeable about science. I'd defer to Topspin on stocks, and I'd defer to cawacko on Porn. But Letting a teabagger play with science is like giving dynamite to a baby - the consequences are disasterous.

LOL @ scientists giving all their raw data to peer reviewers. I actually am quite familiar and have first hand experience with scientific peer review, and I'm not aware than handing over all the raw data to peer reviewers is common practice. I've never done it. Peer reviewers don't have time to pour through reams of raw data. Their job, in my experience, is to review your methods, to see if your conclusions are substantiated by the experimental results, make sure your data and results are reproducible, and evaluate if one took into account alternative hypotheses.

There's nothing magical about raw data. Raw data almost always has to be culled, transformed, or discarded depending on the experimental parameters.



The most important thing about data is that it's reproducible what was done to cull it or transform it (and why) and its documented where and how it was obtained. This is what peer revewers would and should check for, because a clear documentation of methodology and reproducibility is what the scientific method and peer review strive for.

LOL... So HOW dear gumby can a reviewer be able to reproduce what was done to cull or transform the data if they DO NOT POSSESS the RAW DATA?

Cancel 2016.2
01-21-2010, 09:51 AM
And how the hell do you know if their data set is reproducible unless you know what the data set is? If you perform a set of experiments and withhold the results, only giving out your conclusions, how does another scientist know if their experiment is reproducing the same results?

Your argument is pure bullshit.

Which is par for the course for him. He likes to take a rightwing nut and project their views onto every Republican, then he pretends he is enlightened on the topic.

In cases like this, where the topic is way over his head, he tends to contradict himself. Though not usually all in one post. Seriously... he 'LOL at the suggestion that the raw data be supplied to reviewers' only to follow it up with 'the reviewers must have the data to reproduce the results'.

Pity him. He is a lemming and a flat earther... he just cannot fathom that Saint Al lied to him about global warming.

Mott the Hoople
01-22-2010, 08:52 AM
how could you have "crushed" me in debate when you spent none of your time debating and spent all your time bragging that you were so smart you didn't have to debate......since then you've haven't dared respond to any of my posts because you would demonstrate that you actually know fuck all about science......you're all brag with nothing to back it up.....
I crushed you in the debate by using cogent arguments based on fact and empirical observation. Mean while you played "Ring Around The Rosey".

Now don't forget. Homology creates phylogeny! LOL LOL LOL

Hermes Thoth
01-22-2010, 08:53 AM
I crushed you in the debate by using cogent arguments based on fact and empirical observation. Mean while you played "Ring Around The Rosey".

Now don't forget. Homology creates phylogeny! LOL LOL LOL

Drooling is above your skill level.

Mott the Hoople
01-22-2010, 08:56 AM
Which is par for the course for him. He likes to take a rightwing nut and project their views onto every Republican, then he pretends he is enlightened on the topic.

In cases like this, where the topic is way over his head, he tends to contradict himself. Though not usually all in one post. Seriously... he 'LOL at the suggestion that the raw data be supplied to reviewers' only to follow it up with 'the reviewers must have the data to reproduce the results'.

Pity him. He is a lemming and a flat earther... he just cannot fathom that Saint Al lied to him about global warming.
St. Al? What the hell happened to St. Leibowitz? Damnit, I demand a recount!!

Mott the Hoople
01-22-2010, 08:57 AM
Drooling is above your skill level.Oh yea? Well mines bigger! :P

Hermes Thoth
01-22-2010, 09:00 AM
Oh yea? Well mines bigger! :P

YEah. Your goiter is bigger. Eat some iodized salt, fool!

Mott the Hoople
01-22-2010, 09:02 AM
Another awesome thread with the armchair science experts and college dropouts lecturing you on the scientific method. I think you and thorn are the only ones I would trust to be qualified and knowledgeable about science. I'd defer to Topspin on stocks, and I'd defer to cawacko on Porn. But Letting a teabagger play with science is like giving dynamite to a baby - the consequences are disasterous.

LOL @ scientists giving all their raw data to peer reviewers. I actually am quite familiar and have first hand experience with scientific peer review, and I'm not aware than handing over all the raw data to peer reviewers is common practice. I've never done it. Peer reviewers don't have time to pour through reams of raw data. Their job, in my experience, is to review your methods, to see if your conclusions are substantiated by the experimental results, make sure your data and results are reproducible, and evaluate if one took into account alternative hypotheses.

There's nothing magical about raw data. Raw data almost always has to be culled, transformed, or discarded depending on the experimental parameters. The most important thing about data is that it's reproducible what was done to cull it or transform it (and why) and its documented where and how it was obtained. This is what peer revewers would and should check for, because a clear documentation of methodology and reproducibility is what the scientific method and peer review strive for.

Actually Southernman is very knowledgable on science too. He just has that terrible southern contrary streak. Once you get past that he knows his stuff.

Mott the Hoople
01-22-2010, 09:04 AM
Gotta love crypiss saying raw data doesn't matter and that peer reviewers never ask for data then he goes on to say that peer review makes sure the data is reproducible.

Hilarious!
That's a strawman Tinhead. He never said that.

Hermes Thoth
01-22-2010, 09:06 AM
That's a strawman Tinhead. He never said that.

Yes he did.

Mott the Hoople
01-22-2010, 09:07 AM
Yes he did.
Show me where he said "Data doesn't count".

Hermes Thoth
01-22-2010, 09:08 AM
Idiots like to write long meandering diatribes implying all kinds of shit. Then when they get beat down on their stupidity they just claim they never said it. Don't hitch your ship to Cypriots stupidity, mott.

Whos gots the motts?

Hermes Thoth
01-22-2010, 09:09 AM
Show me where he said "Data doesn't count".

He didn't say that verbatim. HE just implied the shit out of it.

and....

Idiots like to write long meandering diatribes implying all kinds of shit. Then when they get beat down on their stupidity they just claim they never said it. Don't hitch your ship to Cypriots stupidity, mott.