Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

[Into the Night]

Look, Popper offered that philosophy of science a century ago. Your knowledge is extremely elementary.

Yet YOU support an even older philosophy. Age doesn't affect philosophy. Presentism fallacy. Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

 

[AProudLefty]

Quantum mechanics does not deny the effects of gravity or deny the existence of that force at all. It simply doesn't bother to use it in its models. That's not what quantum mechanics is about.

 

[Into the Night]

Even though there is no consensus on how to measure gravity or what it is exactly.

oh, lol lol lol lol

Science does not use consensus. Only religions and governments do that. Galileo measured the rate an object falls at or near the surface of the Earth. The gravitational constant itself was measured by Cavendish (and later with better precision).

 

[Into the Night]

Apples fall. That's given. An observation.

As to what makes them fall is the question.

Not a question. A theory. A theory is an explanatory argument.

 

[BidenPresident]

Science does not use consensus. Only religions and governments do that. Galileo measured the rate an object falls at or near the surface of the Earth. The gravitational constant itself was measured by Cavendish (and later with better precision).

Wait, you mean you believe no one ever tested out Galileo's experiments?!

 

[Micawber]

When the dirty old Ben discovered electricity while he flew his kite, did he treat it like a religion?

I appreciate that Darth places a LOL after all his posts. Saves me the trouble.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You constructed a false premise.

You are not pitting two theories against each other.

A falling body is not a theory.

It is an observation.

The theories which have to be pitted against each other are curved spacetime (general relativity) and natural selection (Mendelian version of Darwinian evolution).

Have you ever actually seen curved spacetime?

I have equal confidence in the explanatory power of both general relativity and evolution by natural selection.

Some people don't even believe the Earth is curved.

 

[Micawber]

Wait, you mean you believe no one ever tested out Galileo's experiments?!

Well played.

 

[Into the Night]

On earth, entities with mass fall towards the center of the earth.

Not just on Earth! You really should read the works of Newton, Kepler, and Einstein.

On earth, the geology demonstrates that species changed through time.

How?

Those are observations. And only observations.

No. These are speculations. Only speculations.

We have 100 percent certainty in both observations.

Observation is not speculation. The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science.

But observations do not have explanatory power.

Speculations don't either.

The theory that curvature of spacetime manifests as gravity

It doesn't. Reversal fallacy. It is simply another way to plot the effects of gravity.

is no more secure a theory,

It isn't a theory. It's a plot.

than the theory speciation results from natural selection and gene flow.

Natural selection builds a paradox. There is no such thing as 'gene flow'. Just genes. I like mine blue.

Both are generally on equal footing as far as theories go.

Nope. The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science.
It is also not a plotting method.

 

[Into the Night]

irrelevant to the fact it remains a fundamental truth about science....



I will agree that the scientific method is one of the most basic and fundamental principles of science......why did you not know it?......

Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. It is simply a set of falsifiable theories. There is no 'method'.

 

[Into the Night]

No, it does not.

Argument of the stone fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

"Physicists want to squeeze little old gravity into the standard model—the crown-jewel theory of modern physics that explains three other fundamental forces in physics—but none has succeeded. Like a runt at a pool party, gravity just doesn't fit in when using Einstein's theory of relativity, which explains gravity only on large scales

"Gravity is completely different from the other forces described by the standard model," said Mark Jackson, a theoretical physicist at Fermilab in Illinois. "When you do some calculations about small gravitational interactions, you get stupid answers. The math simply doesn't work."

https://www.livescience.com/1770-greatest-mysteries-gravity.html

Nothing about the Theory of Relativity changes gravity.

 

[Cypress]

Some people don't even believe the Earth is curved.

Non-Euclidian geometry is generally only intelligible to higher life forms.

 

[Cypress]

Not just on Earth! You really should read the works of Newton, Kepler, and Einstein.

How?

No. These are speculations. Only speculations.

Observation is not speculation. The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science.

Speculations don't either.

It doesn't. Reversal fallacy. It is simply another way to plot the effects of gravity.

It isn't a theory. It's a plot.

Natural selection builds a paradox. There is no such thing as 'gene flow'. Just genes. I like mine blue.

Nope. The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science.
It is also not a plotting method.

Are you mentally ill?

 

[AProudLefty]

Nothing about the Theory of Relativity changes gravity.

 

[Into the Night]

Detectives cannot go in past to see what happened at crime scenes either. I guess we should let all the murderers go free.

Detectives can gather evidence at the crime scene, gather testimony of witnesses or technical experts in various fields. The can use theories of science, even developing them on their own and testing them, or using a theory created by another, such as Newton or Einstein.

They can then present all this evidence in a courtroom. NONE of it is a proof. NONE of it is science itself.

That's why we have juries. They are tasked with weighing this evidence, and deciding which is valid and which is not.

 

[Micawber]

Consensus is unavoidable.

You could be a hermit and the best anything in the world you can dream up and if nobody knew, you would not matter.
Even a prophet in a cave needs a visitor from time to time.

If a bear shits in the woods and nobody is there to smell it did it smell?
If a crazed lunatic like Parrot repeats his experiment over and over can we have confidence in the results?

No, science uses consensus as part of the modern day method. Expert priests sanctify the results, and we can have confidence in their agreement about things most people do not understand.

The whole point is to expand human knowledge, not to expand the knowledge of one sage against the fucking world.

I'm sick and tired of right wing idiots bagging on scientific consensus, but I surely know why it is their enemy.

 

[Into the Night]

You did not understand my post. Gravity is not better understood than evolution.

Actually, it is. See Newton's law of Gravitation. It describes the effects of gravity very well. So far it has not been falsified. You might also look at Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, which makes use of gravity in part of its model (which describes some very weird effects).

 

[Into the Night]

Defense lawyer: "Since detectives cannot go back in time to observe what my client did, you must let my client go free."

He can make that as his argument. But he must deal with the evidence the prosecution is presenting. Left unanswered, a jury might take the evidence over this blanket statement.

 

[BidenPresident]

Actually, it is. See Newton's law of Gravitation. It describes the effects of gravity very well. So far it has not been falsified. You might also look at Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, which makes use of gravity in part of its model (which describes some very weird effects).

Way ahead of you dumb dumb.