People with extreme anti-science views know the least...

[Bungle_Bear]

It's exactly the same thing....



Such as the consensus things evolve over time, yet the discoveries have shown the exact opposite.... Fossils that always remain the same for every type of creature over millions of years..... E coli that remain E coli.... Fruit flies that remain fruit flies.....

it is merely the popular opinion that keeps it afloat....


What verification? Fossils that remain the same across millions of years and are only connected to different fossils by "missing" common ancestors one and all?

verification says there is no such thing....


They should have remained unconvinced......


What data? Fully mature galaxies were only newly forming galaxies should be?

Giant clusters of galaxies were none should exist?


Everybody needed something to believe in, even if the data told them they were wrong.....


no, it works by popular opinion. And when the data doesn't fit, why just add as much Fairie Dust as you need to make the numbers crunch. 95% of it to be precise....


it's the individuals that made all the discoveries.....



i have. perhaps you should give it a try sometime and stop relying on popular consensus. You might start to realize that 15 null results in the hunt for Fairie Dust is telling you something..... You might realize that GR is 99.8% correct without any Fairie Dust "inside" the solar system to non-ionized matter. And that only when you attempt to apply it to plasma in the non-concentrated state does it require 95% Fairie Dust to be made into a semblance of accuracy..... Maybe you'd learn that those mature galaxies where they should not exist should be a wake up call to you, along with those giant clusters of galaxies.....



it's not a problem. the problem is they don't want to learn. they have their beloved theories and no new data is going to persuade them that they are wrong. 15 null results hasn't mattered. The fact that GR is 99.8% correct inside the solar system and needs 95% Fairie Dust added to it outside the solar system hasn't mattered....

popular opinion and belonging to the good ole boys club is all that matters today in what you call science and in reality is made up of 95% pseudoscience.....

What I most love about this post is the claim that if one scientific hypothesis is wrong, every other hypothesis in every other non-related field of science must also be wrong. That is such a ridiculously idiotic position to hold, yet I suspect you cannot see why that is the case.

 

[tas8831]

It seems you have an inadequate grasp of science if you use the concept " correct" to describe its philosophical significance. ( so speaks a postgrad now retired professional scientist)

 

[Astrophile]

Such attempts at dating using scientific equipment, which are employed in scientific method show that the radiometric dating systems, do not agree with each other, proving that dating the age of rock is non scientific. That the different radiometric dating types give differing results is fact. The results can be millions or even billions of years apart for the same rock formations, studies performed in the same labs by the same unbiased people.

Can you give more details, or examples of ages differing by, say, 20% for the same rock formation?

 

[USincognito]

I disagree with the author. Some geniuses have made important scientific discoveries that went completely against "scientific" consensus, yet are scientifically proven to be true.

Science doesn't prove anything to be true.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Many scientists produce science that the Bible warns us is false, as in "science falsely so-called."

That phrase refers to knowledge (gnosis) not science.
Evolution as “Science Falsely So-Called”
>> Most subsequent translations render the Greek word gnosis as “knowledge,” not “science,” but since the English word “science” ultimately derives from the Latin word for “knowing,” the scholars who prepared the KJV can be forgiven for any confusion. <<

Take the politically biased and unscrupulous claims by many in "science" that claim the earth's atmosphere has warmed due to increasing man-made (AGW) CO2.

Putting science in scare quotes doesn't make the data and observations go away. There are simply no other factors that explain why the earth is warming except the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 320 ppm to 405ppm in the last 60 years.

Second, water vapor is by far the most impressive greenhouse gas.

I believe you mean the greenhouse gas with the highest percentage in the atmosphere (because CO2 and methane are much more impressive in that capacity).

Third, CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the earth's atmosphere, and if it were to increase by 100% would still not affect global temperature because it is such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere to begin with.

Water vapor cycles out of the atmosphere in about 2 weeks. CO2 lingers for years to decades. Same with methane. And all greenhouse gasses have a profound effect on atmospheric temperatures including water vapor. The ideal 24 hour period during the winter is sunny during the day and cloud covered at night to trap the heat.

Hansen's report was never peer-reviewed and was shown to world leaders who received it with the idea that this would justify creating an invented AGW crisis. All scientific papers and reports are supposed to be peer-reviewed, Hansen's wasn't. It was garbage.

What in the world are you talking about? Robert Hanson is not the only climatologist studying global warming so your focus on him as a boogie man speaks more to your agenda than any issues with his research. And here's a list of his peer reviewed papers going as far back as the 1970s.
Pubs.GISS: Publications by James E. Hansen

The earth's atmosphere is warm now because it is natural for it to be, but it is cooling,{snip}

Utter claptrap. The earth is getting warmer every year. 2018 was the 4th warmest year on record after 2016, 2015 and 2017. Ten of the warmest years have happened since 2005 with 1998, once the record holder, being tied at 10th/11th with 2012.

Politics - the UN in its Agenda 21{snip}

Finishing a discussion ostensibly about science with a two paragraph conspiracy theory is not the best idea.

 

[USincognito]

As for the claims about Hansen, Steve Milloy formerly of the CATO Institute, author of "Scare Pollution" and other books, and fighter agains junk science is also a lawyer and read Hansen's work.

Why should we care what a lawyer, lobbyist and Fox news talking head has to say about a scientific subject? He's no more of an authority on the subject than you or I.

 

[USincognito]

Many things such as the age of geological formations for example, are not science, in that such formations cannot be dated by any known means.

Whenever I see phrases like this I immediately suspect the person is parroting things they've heard from professional Creationists or worse from preachers parroting professional Creationists.

Such attempts at dating using scientific equipment, which are employed in scientific method show that the radiometric dating systems, do not agree with each other, proving that dating the age of rock is non scientific. That the different radiometric dating types give differing results is fact.

This is nothing but vacuous rhetoric unless you can provide actual examples.

The results can be millions or even billions of years apart for the same rock formations, studies performed in the same labs by the same unbiased people.

That literally never happened. I assume this is an allusion to Steve Austin's dishonest dating of ash from Mount Saint Helens. The problem is that K-Ar dating doesn't work on fresh material. There hasn't been enough time for the decay chain to produce useful results. It would be like timing a 100m dash with a calendar and then claiming that stopwatches don't work.

 

[USincognito]

Great Mr. Chemist.

Mocking the man's educational background is exactly what someone who might be subject to the study in the OP would do.

Now try studying the reflectance of water vapor. (That's H2O, right?) Do you know what an albedo is? Have you never noticed clear nights when it is calm and the temperature drops, then it suddenly stops dropping because of cloud cover moving in (not because it is morning)? Hansen fudged the doggone formula.

So far you have made two claims about Hanson that are easily debunked. You claimed that "his paper", as if he only published one, wasn't peer reviewed, but here is his 1998 paper that is considered seminal. It's published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science meaning it's peer reviewed.
Climate forcings in the Industrial era
Also you can search through it to see where he discusses both atmospheric and surface albedo and how they changed it in the models.
>> Figure 3

Optical depth, climate forcing, and simulated equilibrium temperature change for three assumed anthropogenic aerosol distributions. These are the three “more realistic” single scatter albedo (ω) cases of Table 2. <<

>> An increase of aerosols yields smaller cloud-drops, thus a larger cloud albedo (29), but it also increases cloud cover by inhibiting rainfall and thereby increasing cloud lifetime (30). <<

>> Land-use changes alter the albedo (reflectivity) of the surface and modify evapotranspiration and surface roughness. One large effect of altered vegetation occurs via the impact of snow on albedo. The albedo of a cultivated field, e.g., is affected more by a given snowfall than is the albedo of an evergreen forest.

We carried out a climate simulation with pre-Industrial vegetation replaced by current land-use patterns (37). In this experiment, cropland is approximated as having the properties of grassland and deforested tropical land undergoing regrowth is treated as woodland. The global climate forcing due to current land-use, i.e., the change in the planetary radiation balance, is −0.21 W/m2, with the largest contributions from deforested areas in Eurasia and North America (Fig. 4 Left). <<

 

[USincognito]

I'm often reminded of this when people like Kent Hovind talk about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

I made a meme about the 2LoT.

 

[USincognito]

There are however quite a few people that insist that one's biological sex is a matter of one's preference or socialization.

I'm not aware of anyone other than some evengelicals who claim that. They usually phrase it as, "if a boy decides he wants to be a girl that day".

 

[USincognito]

I am not expressing my personal views or beliefs here, I’m simply taking a critical approach to what you have listed as “anti-science “ views.

The fact that you're using weasel words like "prove" and "indisputable" tells me you're not really being as critical as you think.

1. List the evidence for a spherical model. Ideally, evidence which hasn’t yet been rendered as inconclusive.

Literally everything we understand and observe supports a spherical earth in a heliocentric solar system. Seasons, weather patterns, gravity, the earth's magnetic field, lunar eclipses, flight times between certain cities, comets, satellites, direct observation from lunar missions, etc. etc.

2. Provide indisputable evidence that Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Zircon dating, Helium-3 buildup on the moon and the lack of all naturally occurring radioisotopes with half-lives of less than 700,000,000 years.

3. Prove the safety of injecting an infant with 6-16+ vaccinations.

There are dozens of studies showing vaccines and the current vaccine schedule to be safe.

4. Prove homeopathy impotent.

In this case I'm going to say it doesn't work that way. Homeopathy advocates need to demonstrate it's efficacy, and more importantly explain to us why the succussing is so important and how, exactly, diluted water becomes medicine.

 

[Brightmoon]

A trend is a specific change in something being measured often found in statistical data. Generalizations inclusive by nature, of all things, create stereotypes of what is observed. They are non-specific by nature. Science is observing what constitutes laws of physics and trends of what is being observed that can be duplicated and quantified, repeating the same exact procedures. Many things such as the age of geological formations for example, are not science, in that such formations cannot be dated by any known means. Such attempts at dating using scientific equipment, which are employed in scientific method show that the radiometric dating systems, do not agree with each other, proving that dating the age of rock is non scientific. That the different radiometric dating types give differing results is fact. The results can be millions or even billions of years apart for the same rock formations, studies performed in the same labs by the same unbiased people.

. Well the only time that is true is when they date a rock formation that’s composed of different layers especially if there is an unconformity involved . They would have different dates . This usually what creationists do to the Grand Canyon. The bottom layer is about is 2 billion years old compared to the top rock layer which is about 230 million years old

 

[The Barbarian]

In general, people opposed to some aspect of science have a vested interest in something they think would be endangered if what science has found turns out to be true.

 

[ViaCrucis]

1 Timothy 6:20-21 - "20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith."

As for the claims about Hansen, Steve Milloy formerly of the CATO Institute, author of "Scare Pollution" and other books, and fighter agains junk science is also a lawyer and read Hansen's work. You probably don't have any respect for any "denier" I would quote from. The content of CO2 in the atmosphere is fact, Meteorology/Biology 101. Water vapor as well. Agenda 21, from the UN website. The UN Constitution from their site as well. Using words like "garbage" and "hoax" is my way of being polite, in that I know the agenda, and it is horrible. I've done considerable research in the ways of propaganda (i.e., "don't let a good crisis go to waste" and if there is none, create one), as current political agendas as means to ending republics, democratic and otherwise nationalism. The global community milieu being altered to better suit Communism than freedom. The days getting worse and worse are foretold in the Scriptures. Are you familiar with the Scriptures?

1) In Latin scientia simply means "knowledge", the translators of the KJV were using the archaic meaning of "science" here, a broad term simply meaning "knowledge". The Greek here is gnosis; and that's not an accident. St. Paul, or at least the writer of the epistle in Paul's name, is giving warning against proto-Gnosticism or some early kind of Gnosticism. Which is why this false knowledge is part of an erring concerning the faith.

2) The rest of your post comes across as meaningless new world order conspiracy hogwash; I get that this sort of thing is popular in some fringe religious circles, I used to get a good dose of it on the regular; but it's still hogwash.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Michael]

Science doesn't prove anything to be true.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Tell that to astronomers.

A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter

 

[The Barbarian]

Tell that to astronomers.

A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter

He can't even prove that gravitational lensing happens. Compelling evidence isn't proof. We're not talking about the sloppy legal definition of proof, we're talking about logical certainty and this isn't it. You don't get it in science, because you can only infer the rules from watching the game.

You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.


Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.
Scientific Proof Is A Myth

That being said, the paper seems to offer compelling evidence to believe dark matter is a fact. If everything else is right, that is. Proof is only possible when you know the rules and apply them to the particulars. Science is when you observe the particulars and infer the rules.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Tell that to astronomers.

A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter

If you look at the abstract, you'll see that what they mean by proof is 8-sigma significance in their results (spatial separation of the visible and invisible gravitational centres that can't be explained by alternative gravity hypotheses). Any competent scientist would understand their usage to be vernacular.

 

[Michael]

If you look at the abstract, you'll see that what they mean by proof is 8-sigma significance in their results (spatial separation of the visible and invisible gravitational centres that can't be explained by alternative gravity hypotheses). Any competent scientist would understand their usage to be vernacular.

Any competent scientists would have used the term "evidence" in the title of the paper too, not "proof" particularly since their entire claim rests on the accuracy of their baryonic mass estimates based upon luminosity and numerous problems have been found in the assumptions related to that particular calculation.

We've since discovered that the universe is "dustier" and the galaxies are actually much brighter than they imagined in 2006. There are far more small red dwarf sized stars in those distant galaxies than they first imagined. There are far more (our) sun sized stars than they estimated in 2006. There's a halo of gas and another halo of hot plasma around every galaxy which they didn't account for in that 2006 study and far more stars *between* galaxies than they first believed. All of those revelations of baryonic mass underestimates have occurred *after* that 2006 paper was first written, so essentially all they "proved" is that their baryonic mass calculation methods were woefully lacking in 2006 and they are *still* woefully lacking in 2019. They certainly didn't "prove" the existence of exotic types of matter.

Professional scientists are guilty of "over hyping" their findings too and using terms which are not even consistent with science in general. Sometimes they even pass peer review so scientists misuse those terms as well.

 

[Michael]

He can't even prove that gravitational lensing happens.

It's actually worse than you might imagine because even if you assume that lensing is an accurate way to measure mass, that number is then compared to a *different* "baryonic" mass estimate that is based on luminosity which has been repeatedly shown to be flawed in study after study since 2006. The lensing question is the least of their problems actually. If you check out the links I provided in my previous post, you'll see what I mean.

Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.
Scientific Proof Is A Myth

Not only wasn't it "proof" of exotic forms of matter, it wasn't even "strong evidence" of dark matter, it was simply strong evidence that their baryonic mass estimation techniques were horrifically flawed as numerous later studies have repeatedly verified.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

It seems you have an inadequate grasp of science if you use the concept " correct" to describe its philosophical significance. ( so speaks a postgrad now retired professional scientist)

The only philosophical significance is that one can readily correlate the benefits and value of science to the efficacy of the products thus produced from that system.

Faith healing, being much older than what we consider to be "science" cannot be correlated with success of that "method" above and beyond statistical random chance.

So I don't see any real "issue" with saying that because things generated by scientific research work more often than not means science is "correct". Perhaps maladroitly worded, but still not a significant problem.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Any competent scientists would have used the term "evidence" in the title of the paper too, not "proof" particularly since their entire claim rests on the accuracy of their baryonic mass estimates based upon luminosity and numerous problems have been found in the assumptions related to that particular calculation.

I suspect that the usage of 'proof' as a description of high sigma results is becoming more common, but it should be read as implicitly qualified with the standard caveats of scientific research. It wouldn't be the first time jargon has changed. In this case the qualification is with respect to dark matter hypotheses and non-standard gravity hypotheses, as they describe in the discussion: "The observed displacement between the bulk of the baryons and the gravitational potential proves the presence of dark matter for the most general assumptions regarding the behavior of gravity." i.e given the two hypotheses, the falsification of one implies the other. Calling it 'proof' is not strictly accurate, but, meh.

Much of the 'over-hyping' of scientific results is done by the pop-sci media and research PR depts., keen to get media attention.