Science

Grokmaster said:
":SCIENCE" nowdays is a leftist political propaganda arm, where "CONSENSU" is reached by a show of hands, instead of Scientific Method.

Like "TRANSGENDER FEMALES ARE REAL FEMALES"....


BS in Chemistry, U of Missouri at Rolla, now known as the Missouri School of Science and Technology.

How about you?
Click to expand...

You’re conflating the social sciences with the natural sciences.

BA Human Biology (Chemistry minor) Wright State University. MS EH&S Mgt Findley College. I also did graduate studies at Palmer College and did research at the Ohio State University graduate school of Materials Science and Engineering. New a fellow at OSU who did his undergrad studies in materials science at Mizzou Rolla which has a top notch program.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Science has largely failed because the people in science have all to often cared more about what was best for their careers than they did what was best for science.

Also, increasingly scientists are held in low regard, for cause.

You are many decades out of date.
Click to expand...

Like hell I am. You’re the one in lala land. You’re probably a neophyte who never professionally studied science and technology or made a career in it.

It’s the anti-science crowd like you that have alienated most scientists from the GOP. Including me.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Like hell I am. You’re the one in lala land. You’re probably a neophyte who never professionally studied science and technology or made a career in it.

It’s the anti-science crowd like you that have alienated most scientists from the GOP. Including me.
Click to expand...

I will therefore assume that you do not agree with Michael Shellenberger on the politicalisation and hijacking of climate science by various people for their own nefarious ends. It's becoming increasingly clear that the hysteria and alarmism is being exposed more and more, the Dems will be revealed as huxsters soon enough. What I do find surprising is that a bright guy like you can't see that, you will eventually though!

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...e-For-The-Climate-Scare&p=3756479#post3756479
 
Last edited:
Grajonca said:
I will therefore assume that you do not agree with Michael Shellenberger on the politicalisation and hijacking of climate science by various people for their own nefarious ends. It's becoming increasingly clear that the hysteria and alarmism is being exposed more and more, the Dems will be revealed as huxsters soon enough. What I do find surprising is that a bright guy like you can't see that, you will eventually though!

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...e-For-The-Climate-Scare&p=3756479#post3756479
Click to expand...

Sounds like he has recently been getting his head warped at a Failed University.

That would explain the idiocy.
 
Grajonca said:
I will therefore assume that you do not agree with Michael Shellenberger on the politicalisation and hijacking of climate science by various people for their own nefarious ends. It's becoming increasingly clear that the hysteria and alarmism is being exposed more and more, the Dems will be revealed as huxsters soon enough. What I do find surprising is that a bright guy like you can't see that, you will eventually though!

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...e-For-The-Climate-Scare&p=3756479#post3756479
Click to expand...

You would be correct Tom. Nor do I agree with Larry Johnson about scientist politicizing evolutionary theory. Both positions are “God of the gaps” arguments.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Sounds like he has recently been getting his head warped at a Failed University.

That would explain the idiocy.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t expect Tom to be to sympathetic with your position. I respect Tom’s dissent on the topic because he has actually studied science and has at least drawn his conclusions from informed dissenting sources and isn’t some tribal political hack who’s opinion is based on a tribal party affiliation.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I wouldn’t expect Tom to be to sympathetic with your position. I respect Tom’s dissent on the topic because he has actually studied science and has at least drawn his conclusions from informed dissenting sources and isn’t some tribal political hack who’s opinion is based on a tribal party affiliation.
Click to expand...
You’re joking right? Informed dissenting sources?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You’re conflating the social sciences with the natural sciences.

BA Human Biology (Chemistry minor) Wright State University. MS EH&S Mgt Findley College. I also did graduate studies at Palmer College and did research at the Ohio State University graduate school of Materials Science and Engineering. New a fellow at OSU who did his undergrad studies in materials science at Mizzou Rolla which has a top notch program.
Click to expand...

the climate "crisis" had shown us that peer review has been replaced with political review..........perhaps instead of self-correcting you should speak of goal-correcting.......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You would be correct Tom. Nor do I agree with Larry Johnson about scientist politicizing evolutionary theory. Both positions are “God of the gaps” arguments.
Click to expand...

given that evolutionary science has replaced the old scientific method with "if it meets with our assumptions we can continue to assume it is true", it is disingenuous to claim anything is an "of the gaps" argument......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What makes science unique from other philosophies is that science is specifically designed to be self correcting. Is science often wrong? Absolutely and more than lay people think. The truth is that in practicing science you will almost always be wrong more often than you’re right. The whole purpose of science is to determine what to the best of our knowledge are the facts about nature. The scientific methods purpose is to identify these facts but science is self correcting because one of its primary tenets is that all knowledge is tentative and all scientific knowledge is predicated on the basis that you
may be wrong. Even if the probability of being wrong is incredibly small, you still might be wrong. There are no absolutes in science. Just differing degrees of the probability of being correct. This concept makes science self correcting. When a new fact with a higher probability of being correct is discovered than what was previously believed then that belief must either be abandoned if that fact falsifies it or that belief must be modified to account for this new fact.

So that’s the humbling part of science. Being right is incredibly hard to do,

As to your point on science being abused by those outside of science with other agendas cannot be placed at the foot of science. Rather it is the individual’s responsibility to be literate in science so that they can question questionable science. In most cases where science is abused by those with agendas other than science it is almost always scientist who point that out.

This is also why scientist are the single most respected group of professionals.
Click to expand...

Science is not facts. Science is not scientists. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Science has largely failed because the people in science have all to often cared more about what was best for their careers than they did what was best for science.

Also, increasingly scientists are held in low regard, for cause.

You are many decades out of date.
Click to expand...

There DO seem to be a fair number of scientists these days that deny science. 'Science' is one of the most used buzzwords in media today.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Like hell I am. You’re the one in lala land. You’re probably a neophyte who never professionally studied science and technology or made a career in it.

It’s the anti-science crowd like you that have alienated most scientists from the GOP. Including me.
Click to expand...

Science is not a profession or a career. It is not a credential or a license. Science is not technology. Science is not scientists. It is not even people at all. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It makes no use of supporting evidence. It does not use consensus. There is no elite voting power or bloc that sanctifies a theory into one of science. Science does not use peer review.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less.
 
Into the Night said:
Science is not a profession or a career. It is not a credential or a license. Science is not technology. Science is not scientists. It is not even people at all. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It makes no use of supporting evidence. It does not use consensus. There is no elite voting power or bloc that sanctifies a theory into one of science. Science does not use peer review.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Click to expand...

Don't agree. Your theory of falsifiable was profered by Karl Popper and others. Most philosophers of science no longer believe that.

Heisenberg (or Bohr) said there are three components of science. One is the research and the article. Two is consensus of scientists in offering criticism. Third is the subject or observer.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You would be correct Tom. Nor do I agree with Larry Johnson about scientist politicizing evolutionary theory. Both positions are “God of the gaps” arguments.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as 'climate science'. 'Climate change' has not yet been defined. No theory of any kind can be based on a void argument.

The Theory of Evolution is not science either. It is not a falsifiable theory. Theories of science must be falsifiable. Science does not use supporting evidence.
 
Into the Night said:
There is no such thing as 'climate science'. 'Climate change' has not yet been defined. No theory of any kind can be based on a void argument.

The Theory of Evolution is not science either. It is not a falsifiable theory. Theories of science must be falsifiable. Science does not use supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

Nothing you said is true.
 
jacksonsprat22 said:
Don't agree. Your theory of falsifiable was profered by Karl Popper and others. Most philosophers of science no longer believe that.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a 'philosopher of science'. There is just philosophy. Discarding a philosophy solely based on 'people do not believe that' is a fallacy. You do not get to speak for others. You only get to speak for you. Bigotry.
jacksonsprat22 said:
Heisenberg (or Bohr) said there are three components of science.
Click to expand...
Okay, lets look at them.
jacksonsprat22 said:
One is the research and the article.
Click to expand...
Research into what? There is not theory specified. Article on what? Where is this article? I'm gonna call buzzword fallacy on this one.
jacksonsprat22 said:
Two is consensus of scientists in offering criticism.
Click to expand...
Science is not a vote. It is not a poll. There is no voting bloc in science to sanctify any theory into a scientific one.
jacksonsprat22 said:
Third is the subject or observer.
Click to expand...
What subject? What theory? Observations and the data produced by them are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are evidence only. They are not science.

BTW, nothing that Heisenberg or Bohr contributed to science involved any of these three principles you just mentioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top