Science

[Saudade]

It's a simple concept.

Transgender women are not biologically women but identify as one.

And no they are not confused. MRI scans suggest that.

Any more questions?

Transgender appears to be somewhat of a misnomer, however. If the goal of a transgender person is to become physically the same as a biological female, then the person is actually transsexual. That was the old term for this, and it was more accurate.

For someone who only identifies as female but remains physically male, that could be described as transgender. However, in this particular case, it's merely a matter of social difference. As a result, I would argue that someone who doesn't physically transition most certainly cannot be allowed to enter all biological female spaces. It presents far too many risks.

 

[Into the Night]

So falsify it and win Nobel Prize.

Don't need to. It's already been falsified by nullification of sequence.

 

[Saudade]

Well I have no idea about that. It's a different topic. A new thread might be needed on that.

No idea about that. Ever seen Russian women? Some of them can beat the crap out of experienced MMA fighters.

Some Russian women might fit that, although the stereotype seems to more accurately apply to countries just west of Russia. There are a lot of very feminine Russian women (and also many super hot Ukrainian ones too).

That being said, some Tatar women seem to lean in the butch direction.

 

[Darth Omar]

With something better that fits the observations and data.

Well, we’ve been deprived of actual observation in it’s really interesting aspects lol.

What we can observe are apparent limitations on natural selection. But that can’t be the case or the whole thing falls apart. But since only purely naturalistic explanations are allowed—-there’s only One Game in Town.

 

[Into the Night]

Well, there’s a bit of a problem with that lol.

What do you replace it with?

Does it need replacing?

Nobel prizes are awarded according to the whims of the Nobel estate. They are not science nor are they a proof. They are usually awarded for a new contributing theory, not the falsification of one.

 

[AProudLefty]

Well, we’ve been deprived of actual observation in it’s really interesting aspects lol.

What we can observe are apparent limitations on natural selection. But that can’t be the case or the whole thing falls apart. But since only purely naturalistic explanations are allowed—-there’s only One Game in Town.

Evolution can be observed. And there's fossils.

 

[Into the Night]

With something better that fits the observations and data.

Data is the result of an observation (even when augmented by instruments). All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not science. They are evidence only.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[AProudLefty]

Some Russian women might fit that, although the stereotype seems to more accurately apply to countries just west of Russia. There are a lot of very feminine Russian women (and also many super hot Ukrainian ones too).

That being said, some Tatar women seem to lean in the butch direction.

Yeah. It's just that it's a different topic. I am on the fence about sports. Megan Youngren is a good example of one.

 

[Saudade]

There is no such thing as 'climate science'. Climate has no value associated with it. 'Climate change' and 'global warming' remain undefined. 'Greenhouse effect' explanations deny science. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion that routinely denies science and mathematics.

You could say that the phrase "greenhouse effect" is somewhat inaccurate. What's really happening is that our atmosphere lowers the heat loss that would normally be present in something like a vacuum. Actual greenhouses prevent heat loss as well, but this is in reference to convection (rather than the radiative effect in our atmosphere).

That being said, climate science is a real thing, but the media (and progressives) often present the religion you speak of. There are legitimate researchers in climate science, but because of the political nature of the field, you have to be wary of the conflicting interests.

 

[Into the Night]

Well, we’ve been deprived of actual observation in it’s really interesting aspects lol.

What we can observe are apparent limitations on natural selection. But that can’t be the case or the whole thing falls apart. But since only purely naturalistic explanations are allowed—-there’s only One Game in Town.

This gets into phenomenology problems. For example, lets take a common event, the sunrise:

To one, it is a god rising into the sky to light his world.
To another, it is a vehicle carrying such a god.
To another, it is a fiery furnace.
To another, it is a nuclear fusion reaction.
To another, it circles a stationary Earth.
To another, it is stationary, and the spinning Earth only makes it appear to move.
To another, neither is stationary, and they orbit each other, as they both orbit the galaxy.

Six different views, many of them completely incompatible with each other, all from the same observed event.

Observing something is more than just a sensory stimuli. That stimuli must be interpreted into something by our brains that is meaningful. That interpretation is done according to how we each perceive the Universe and how it works. That perception is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint. It colors everything we observe. The data, which results from an observation, is similarly colored. The 'raw data' isn't so 'raw' after all. We built the machine to collect the data we reckon we're going to find.

Thus, it's only evidence. It is not a proof. It is not a part of science.

The Theory of Evolution, which comes from Greece, not Darwin, simply states that present day life evolved from more primitive forms. This is a theory about the unobserved past and is therefore not testable in a specific way using a specific test. It is not falsifiable, and therefore is not a theory of science. There is no way to determine if it's True or False. We can't go back to see what actually happened.

The Theory of Natural Selection states that a life form exists because it is best suited to exist. In reality, this is actually a reversal fallacy. It attempts to justify the end product (the life form) as somehow 'destined' to be, using a design criteria imposed upon the life form. It's a fallacy. For it to work at all, there must first be a variety to select from. If there is a variety to select from, what produces the variety? Natural selection tends to reduce variety, not increase it. This exposes the sequential nature of the theory, which is not allowed as a theory of science. Such a theory is using a special pleading fallacy and is therefore not a valid argument.

Darwin came up with a good one, judging by public reactions to it, even today; but it couldn't withstand the internal consistency check, which ALL theories (both scientific and otherwise) must pass. It therefore has been falsified.

 

[Into the Night]

Evolution can be observed. And there's fossils.

Evolution exists. We even have a word for it!

That is not, however, the Theory of Evolution, which states that present day life evolved from more primitive forms.
That theory is not falsifiable. There is no way to test it. We can't go back to see what actually happened. It may be True, it may be False. We simply don't know, and can't know.

Fossils do show life forms that have existed in the past. They do not show genealogy. Any genealogy imposed on fossil records is a speculation, not science.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You could say that the phrase "greenhouse effect" is somewhat inaccurate. What's really happening is that our atmosphere lowers the heat loss that would normally be present in something like a vacuum. Actual greenhouses prevent heat loss as well, but this is in reference to convection (rather than the radiative effect in our atmosphere).

That being said, climate science is a real thing, but the media (and progressives) often present the religion you speak of. There are legitimate researchers in climate science, but because of the political nature of the field, you have to be wary of the conflicting interests.

One that is going to be interesting with the massive reduction in air travel that COVID 19 has caused, is the effect on temperatures due to a large reduction in contrails. If this tracks well, it will be a major blow to the anthropogenic CO2 argument for Gorebal Warming (the religion of climate change).

 

[AProudLefty]

Evolution exists. We even have a word for it!

That is not, however, the Theory of Evolution, which states that present day life evolved from more primitive forms.
That theory is not falsifiable. There is no way to test it. We can't go back to see what actually happened. It may be True, it may be False. We simply don't know, and can't know.

Fossils do show life forms that have existed in the past. They do not show genealogy. Any genealogy imposed on fossil records is a speculation, not science.

You do realize that evolution can be observed?

 

[Darth Omar]

Evolution can be observed. And there's fossils.

Evolution absolutely occurs.

Bacteria *evolve* resistance to antibiotics and it’s a real problem in the health field. The problem is no new species ever evolve; and in fact, the resistant strains are less fit to survive when/if they are forced to compete against their peers in absence of antibiotics.

Also, ironically, antibiotic resistant bacteria are a product of intelligent agency: they wouldn’t exist without man’s agency. In a similar sense, animal breeders ‘selected’ traits from a population to produce some remarkably different breeds of animals but the horse is always a horse and etc.

This was all well known even in Darwin’s day. In fact, Darwin devoted an early chapter to it in his book.

While that’s all quite interesting, it’s uninteresting, from the standpoint of Darwin’s ‘more ambitious’ claims.

 

[Darth Omar]

This gets into phenomenology problems. For example, lets take a common event, the sunrise:

To one, it is a god rising into the sky to light his world.
To another, it is a vehicle carrying such a god.
To another, it is a fiery furnace.
To another, it is a nuclear fusion reaction.
To another, it circles a stationary Earth.
To another, it is stationary, and the spinning Earth only makes it appear to move.
To another, neither is stationary, and they orbit each other, as they both orbit the galaxy.

Six different views, many of them completely incompatible with each other, all from the same observed event.

Observing something is more than just a sensory stimuli. That stimuli must be interpreted into something by our brains that is meaningful. That interpretation is done according to how we each perceive the Universe and how it works. That perception is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint. It colors everything we observe. The data, which results from an observation, is similarly colored. The 'raw data' isn't so 'raw' after all. We built the machine to collect the data we reckon we're going to find.

Thus, it's only evidence. It is not a proof. It is not a part of science.

The Theory of Evolution, which comes from Greece, not Darwin, simply states that present day life evolved from more primitive forms. This is a theory about the unobserved past and is therefore not testable in a specific way using a specific test. It is not falsifiable, and therefore is not a theory of science. There is no way to determine if it's True or False. We can't go back to see what actually happened.

The Theory of Natural Selection states that a life form exists because it is best suited to exist. In reality, this is actually a reversal fallacy. It attempts to justify the end product (the life form) as somehow 'destined' to be, using a design criteria imposed upon the life form. It's a fallacy. For it to work at all, there must first be a variety to select from. If there is a variety to select from, what produces the variety? Natural selection tends to reduce variety, not increase it. This exposes the sequential nature of the theory, which is not allowed as a theory of science. Such a theory is using a special pleading fallacy and is therefore not a valid argument.

Darwin came up with a good one, judging by public reactions to it, even today; but it couldn't withstand the internal consistency check, which ALL theories (both scientific and otherwise) must pass. It therefore has been falsified.

Well again, what are you going to replace it with?

Science prohibits anything but purely naturalistic explanations; it’s operating assumption is virtually all of nature can be explained via purely naturalistic mechanisms.

Darwin is left standing—not because of its explanatory power but because it’s Darwin or nothing.

 

[Into the Night]

You could say that the phrase "greenhouse effect" is somewhat inaccurate. What's really happening is that our atmosphere lowers the heat loss that would normally be present in something like a vacuum. Actual greenhouses prevent heat loss as well, but this is in reference to convection (rather than the radiative effect in our atmosphere).

I call this the Magick Blanket Argument. It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics and ignores the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Heat loss by the Earth is by light, not by conduction or convection. This is done by conversion of thermal energy into electromagnetic energy according the the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states:
r = C*e*t^4, where r is in radiance (amplitude of light, in watts, over a square meter, C is a natural constant (effective converts the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is the emissivity of the radiating surface (including any gases in the atmosphere)...a percentage measured constant value on how well a surface can radiate light compared to ideal black (perfectly absorptive), to ideal white (perfect reflector), and 't' is temperature in deg K.

In other words, the hotter a surface is, the more light it is radiating. All matter radiates; the Earth's surface, the atmosphere, everything. Light is the only way energy can dissipate into space.

Further, by imposing an increasing insulative power in the atmosphere, you are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics by cooling the upper atmosphere and warming the lower one within the same system. This is a reduction of entropy within the same system, which is not possible.

Real greenhouses (and cars parked in the Sun) reach a higher temperature because of the reduction of heat, while still absorbing sunlight and converting some of that into thermal energy. Not all light converts to thermal energy when absorbed and might not even be absorbed at all. White cars tend to remain a bit cooler than black cars, for example. They accumulate more total thermal energy, which increases the average thermal energy per given volume, which we call temperature. At night, when the Sun goes down, all of these lose all that energy they gained again. They again reach the temperature of the outside temperature. Entropy is satisfied.

You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy either. There is always heat.

That being said, climate science is a real thing,

Nope. No such thing. Climate doesn't even have a value to work with. Science must be falsifiable. That means a test must be available that is specific, and produces a specific result, that tests the theory itself for possible False. The test demands a value. Climate has none. A desert climate is still a desert climate. A marine climate is still a marine climate. There is no value. There is no such thing as a global climate. Earth has many climates. There is no falsifiable theory here. There is no science here.

but the media (and progressives) often present the religion you speak of.

So do 'climate scientists'. Like everyone else in the Church of Global Warming, they deny science and mathematics. They are just priests in this religion.

There are legitimate researchers in climate science,

None. A priest is not science. Science isn't a 'research' or a 'study'. It is a set of falsifiable theories. I have shown two of them to you:

2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t), where 'e' is entropy. and 't' is time.
Stefan Boltzmann law: r = C * e * t^4, where the meanings are already given.

but because of the political nature of the field,

Religion, actually. It IS trying to become a State religion though.

you have to be wary of the conflicting interests.

Science has no conflicts. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science. One or both theories are falsified. This is known as the external consistency check...a check a theories of science MUST pass. Non-scientific theories do not need to pass this test, but they DO need to pass the internal consistency check...a test against logic...since all theories are explanatory arguments.

 

[Into the Night]

You do realize that evolution can be observed?

You already said this. I already answered you. RQAA.

 

[AProudLefty]

You already said this. I already answered you. RQAA.

Yes you did. And yet you said it cannot be falsified.

 

[Into the Night]

Evolution absolutely occurs.

Bacteria *evolve* resistance to antibiotics and it’s a real problem in the health field.

Actually, resistant bacteria have always been there. Cutting an antibiotic program short induces an 'unnatural selection' of resistant bacteria. Yes, it's a problem.

The problem is no new species ever evolve;

The problem here is how do you define a 'species'? Is a white horse a different species than a brown horse? What constitutes just a 'variety' of a thing, and what constitutes a new 'species' of a thing?

and in fact, the resistant strains are less fit to survive when/if they are forced to compete against their peers in absence of antibiotics.

This is true, as far as we have observed so far.

Also, ironically, antibiotic resistant bacteria are a product of intelligent agency: they wouldn’t exist without man’s agency.

Rather correct. Man imposed an 'unnatural selection' upon the bacteria.

In a similar sense, animal breeders ‘selected’ traits from a population to produce some remarkably different breeds of animals but the horse is always a horse and etc.

Also true. There has never been an observed case of, say, a dog turning into horse, though they are both often loyal to their owners and both display a 'herd' behavior.

This was all well known even in Darwin’s day. In fact, Darwin devoted an early chapter to it in his book.

Pigeons fanciers, farmers that graft different varieties together to get a composite fruit, or a hybrid fruit, taking the poor dog and turning it into this little punters known as 'purse dogs' through unnatural selection (selective breeding), etc.

While that’s all quite interesting, it’s uninteresting, from the standpoint of Darwin’s ‘more ambitious’ claims.

Again, correct. His conclusion after all of these discussions was the Theory of Natural Selection, a theory to explain how the Theory of Evolution might function. Unfortunately for Darwin, the theory couldn't pass the internal consistency check or survive sequence nulification, and has been falsified.

Nice comments.

 

[Into the Night]

Well again, what are you going to replace it with?

Science prohibits anything but purely naturalistic explanations; it’s operating assumption is virtually all of nature can be explained via purely naturalistic mechanisms.

Darwin is left standing—not because of its explanatory power but because it’s Darwin or nothing.

it doesn't need replacing. Falsification of a theory does not require replacing by another theory.