Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?

[Targ]

Why is it, Targ, that when I rant about Pluto, I get, "But Pluto is still there", or "big deal"; yet, when I claim I'm not a Homo sapiens, people want further clarification?

Because it's nothing more than a squabble over nomenclature. It's not like they suddenly realised that Pluto orbited another star or that Pluto was actually a speck of dust on the lens of the telescope or anything major like that.

A century or so ago, there were not as many geological time periods as there are now. Initially, a period may have covered 150 million years, but later it may have been subdivided into three periods of 50 million years each. Why was this? Were they originally wrong to give it such a broad time range? No. The division is simply a helpful way of identifying more precise periods of time. Likewise, the term planet was becoming overused and therefore unhelpful. It covered objects as massively diverse as Jupiter and Pluto. So to make the name more useful, they decided it would be better to label it as a dwarf planet. What's changed? Not a lot - just the name. And as Naraoia says, Pluto and Charon continue their waltz around the Sun, hand in hand for many eons to come. But then you know this, because it's been explained to you a ridiculous number of times.

 

[Cabal]

It's funny how most of the time, us scientists are propagandists (inadvertantly) working for Satan and eventually the antiChrist (but still gifts from God, of course) and are always wrong no matter what counters to AV's prejudices are raised - but when he finds someone who agrees with him, wow, talk about a rotation of pi radians.

 

[AV1611VET]

It does when redrawing happens fairly often in science, and there is inevitably one subset that pines for the old system regardless of what arguments are made.

You go ahead and justify it any way you want, Cabal; I'm familiar with worldly morals.

 

[Cabal]

You go ahead and justify it any way you want, Cabal; I'm familiar with worldly morals.

Go ahead and ignore the point any way you want, AV - I'm familiar with your baseless prejudices.

International System of Units - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
IUPAC nomenclature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Calling something a metre or 39.36 inches doesn't change something's actual length.
Calling something formaldehyde or methanal doesn't change that it's a chemical preservative of tissue.

If someone was trying to rig a vote that tried to claim something's length was shorter or longer than it actually empirically was, or that formaldehyde doesn't preserve tissue - that would be worth getting heated about. But mere renamings happen all the time and have no effect on the actual conclusions of science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because it's nothing more than a squabble over nomenclature.

Yet we'd better 'squabble' from your perspective, or we need a life, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's funny how most of the time, us scientists are propagandists (inadvertantly) working for Satan and eventually the antiChrist (but still gifts from God, of course) and are always wrong no matter what counters to AV's prejudices are raised - but when he finds someone who agrees with him, wow, talk about a rotation of pi radians.

If the shoe fits...

 

[Cabal]

If the shoe fits...

Thanks for admitting one of your many inconsistencies.

 

[Delphiki]

Man, she really needs to get herself a boyfriend.

Um.. HELLO. I think we're overlooking the obvious. We could hook her up with AVET!

 

[AV1611VET]

But mere renamings happen all the time and have no effect on the actual conclusions of science.

Save that rhetoric for your colleagues; you're fooling neither me, the California state assembly, New Mexico's House of Representatives, nor the Illinois State Senate.

 

[Naraoia]

Ya -- anyone who dares disagree with this rigged scientific vote is a candidate for ridicule, aren't they?

Depends on why and how they disagree. Also, "scientific vote"?

Wanting Pluto reinstated to full planetary status is 'ardent advocacy'; but getting together and deciding to lock the doors to one's colleagues and rigging a vote draws a 'meh, so what' from you guys; doesn't it?

Oh, come off it already. I was trying to be funny. And reacting to Targ's reaction to this woman's pro-planet activity anyway.

Will I have to make a disclaimer every time I attempt a joke?

To be honest, from what little I heard on these forums, I'm starting to think the whole Pluto/planet affair is a joke.

 

[Naraoia]

Calling something formaldehyde or methanal doesn't change that it's a chemical preservative of tissue.

Formaldehyde by any other name would stink the same

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Cabal http://www.christianforums.com/t7512301-11/#post56125976

It does when redrawing happens fairly often in science, and there is inevitably one subset that pines for the old system regardless of what arguments are made.
You go ahead and justify it any way you want, Cabal; I'm familiar with worldly morals.

Lets try this again, shall we:

If tomorrow there was a vote to lable Fords as brum brum machines, rather than cars it would not change what we understood about the internal combustion engine. Even if it was a fixed vote that no one agreed with, none of our understanding would change.

Do you agree or disagree with the above statement?

 

[Cabal]

Save that rhetoric for your colleagues

It has nothing to do with rhetoric - I posted evidence. Address it, or retract your statements.

you're fooling neither me, the California state assembly, New Mexico's House of Representatives, nor the Illinois State Senate.

Why, have those state assemblies used this one renaming incident to cast aspersions on all of science while repeatedly and disingenuously claiming that they respect it? No. They rejected the renaming (and quite frankly, so what - I did point out that there's a subset who will pine for the old nomenclature no matter what, as there is with any significant change in any situation) - the similarities between you and them end there.

 

[Cabal]

Formaldehyde by any other name would stink the same

That's (reasonably) empirical!

 

[Cabal]

It does when redrawing happens fairly often in science, and there is inevitably one subset that pines for the old system regardless of what arguments are made.

To clarify the above, seeing as a couple of people have quoted it - the above should have read "It does when redrawing of terminology happens....".

 

[AV1611VET]

(and quite frankly, so what - I did point out that there's a subset who will pine for the old nomenclature no matter what, as there is with any significant change in any situation)

"Subset"?

You guys are acting like we are the one's in the minority; when, in fact, this change was made by just a handful of crooks behind closed doors.

 

[Cabal]

"Subset"?

You guys are acting like we are the one's in the minority; when, in fact, this change was made by just a handful of crooks behind closed doors.

You are in the minority when it comes to people who actually care about the change and think it should be reversed.

You're in an even smaller minority when it comes to people who actually think this has any bearing on the conclusions of science itself.

Perhaps you could stop avoiding the point now and respond either to my evidence posted a while back, or answer Psudopod's question?

 

[Delphiki]

"crooks"

lol


And 9/11 was an inside job!

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you could stop avoiding the point now and respond either to my evidence posted a while back, or answer Psudopod's question?

From you guys' perspective, that's not my style.

 

[AV1611VET]

"crooks"

Yes, "crooks".

Ever heard that term applied to your prophets?