Science Denial

[RickG]

I just explained it. For some reason, FACT does not equal TRUTH, unless you want to say differently - that was the semantic problem addressed above.

There is a TRANSPARENCY problem because scientists, for example, do not tell the layperson, "This is a scientific FACT, but that doesn't imply it is true, or accurate in the denotation sense..."

Instead, they project their FACT and theories, and then when we have a discussion about the nonfatal aspects of their work (as has happen many times in history,) there is a exclamation that "fact" doesn't imply Truth, or that there is no such thing as 100% accuracy, so the founded "FACTS" are enough.

That doesn't work for those of us who have been in academia, have seen what goes on, and know the scientifc legalese that protect intellectual property and the sources from which they come. In other words: academia is misleading at best.

That isn't even addressing the misleading actions in which some scientists ignore that starting with error produces error through operations. AGW has had enough scandal to be ridiculed even in the public eye; it is the new "evolution," which apparently is fact, not but fact enough to be truth.

You don't see the misleading circumlocution between how academia defines their facts, the truth and what people perceive based on what academia says? It is painfully obvious - unless you defend academia like one would defend one's religion when confronted with hypocrisy or error.

Opinion noted and rejected.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Opinion noted and rejected.

It isn't opinion, but if it makes you feel better then it is opinion.

I suppose you can put my "opinion" in the same category of scientific fact, since apparently neither imply truth.

It is truth, however, that if you begin with error, your error will extend over the operations for which you use the erroneous parameter. It may not be "scientific fact," since that doesn't mean truth, but it is the truth.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You don't know why fossils exist. You don't know if there was a rogue dwarf planet that caused a global event, or a binary system that wreaked upheval on the surface and living creatures. You don't know if "the gods" caused fossilized remains to exist when they destroyed things. You don't know if fossils have "apparent ages" that make them seem older than they actually are - through radiological, chemical, biological or epidemiological reasons.

Academia ASSUMES fossils are remains from a very long time ago. They use their dating methods - which are not perfect and measurably erroneous - to further substantiate their claims. But, that also assumes that isotopes in biological entities do not undergo spontaneous radioactivity (which can, in fact, happen,) aging the remains.

The fossil theory is desperately necessary for the evolution FACT - and FACT is truth, or its own entity? Carbon dating goes up to 75,000 years, but loses accuracy long before that point.

Carbon 14 was doubled due to our nuclear testing age, so if someone comes and collects our fossils some centuries from now, they wont have an accurate measure to date - or rather, the dating will be in error. How do we know a similar event did not happen for the samples we gathered? We dont.

So, you have to ignore many, many things in order to assume the things about evolution. It is a great academic track of a theory, since you need infinite time for some of the things it suggest to naturally happen - and 3 billion years is a while enogh.

This is why if you start with error, but ignore that starting with error will pollute operations over that error, then everything else works out. Core and Carbon dating methods assume, extrapolate and account for inconsistencies based on what is assume should be.

So, if scientists claim it is FACT, they should either add a caveat, or stop saying it is FACT.

Then what are scientists supposed to do then? Nothing at all? What should scientists start with, oh wise and mighty @Ygrene Imref, arbitrator of all knowledge?

 

[RickG]

It isn't opinion, but if it makes you feel better then it is opinion.

I have yet to see any quantitative substance to support any of the claims previously posted.

It is truth, however, that if you begin with error, your error will extend over the operations for which you use the erroneous parameter.

I agree with that. However, I have yet to see where the science showing AGW begins with era. Perhaps a specific example.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Then what are scientists supposed to do then? Nothing at all? What should scientists start with, oh wise and mighty @Ygrene Imref, arbitrator of all knowledge?

No need to patronize me, and I have explicitly stated what should be expected of academia: transparency. It is that simple.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I gave you several examples. If you use 0.0000075% of a dynamical system''s data set, and extrapolate that into a model that claims to predict - with an apparent measure of certainty - then you are starting with ERROR.

It is like an ant saying that it can accurately determine the mood of a 76 year old man by observing 3-minutes of his life. That is the error it starts with.

And, that error is translated over operations using the parameters which begin with error.

The scientists asserting AGW don't even know if this is a part of a 12,000 year periodic change - or perhaps they do, and would rather make it a sociopolitical issue for support. They are assuming their models are SMOOTH over the time scale - not accounting for acute changes in boundary conditions, initial conditions and space.

If you start with error, it will carry over all operations for which the erroneous parameter was used. If you ignore this, then everything makes sense. And, just because there is an apparent solution to a system does not make it the unique solution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No need to patronize me, and I have explicitly stated what should be expected of academia: transparency. It is that simple.

No, what's patronizing is someone who obviously has no scientific background continually goes on and on about what scientists should do, like they themselves are the be-all-and-end-all of science. Like you are continually doing on this thread.
And you also didn't answer my question. How on Earth are scientists supposed to start with 'transparency'? That says nothing.

 

[klutedavid]

Ya ... a couple.

First of all, qv the video starting at 02:04.

Her nameplate says her name is Tom Blumenthal!

Second of all, unless I missed it, she doesn't say one word about why she's leaving the History Channel.

Thirdly, has anyone addressed the fact that if you fill a glass of ice cubes up with water ... right to the rim, and let it set until all the ice melts, not a drop of water will run over the edge? In fact, the level of water will drop. That's because water expands as it freezes.

Let the ice caps melt, the ocean level will drop ... not rise.

Hello Av1611VET.

The ice that is melting is both below and above sea level. Overall there will be a very significant rise in sea level over the coming decades. Do you understand the scale of the ice above sea level in Antartica, this ice covers the ground it is not in the water.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course they did.

No, they did not.
I wonder how you can say such things and think you're making sense.

Newton created an entire mathematical system to explain what he thought hat to exist. Darwin definitely provided paradigms for status quo to change and conform to Darwinism. Einstein was King Status Quo. GALILLEO wasn't status quo because the Church was the dominant establishment, I will give that.

/facepalm

The final point I am making is that if you start with error, your entire answer will be erroneous. It is that simple.

Maybe you should apply that logic to your own arguments.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hello Av1611VET.

The ice that is melting is both below and above sea level. Overall there will be a very significant rise in sea level over the coming decades. Do you understand the scale of the ice above sea level in Antartica, this ice covers the ground it is not in the water.

Okay, thank you.

 

[just a believing guy]

I don't know where you live, but over here in this universe, fame and glory is reserved for those scientists who prove all their peers to being wrong, while those who simply uphold the status quo are gray mice in the masses that nobody has ever heared about...

The Nobel Prize is reserved for those who prove all their peers to being right...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And you are sure of the uniqueness of your answer - that those layers do not connote anything else other than seasonal change in the way it presents its pattern?

It's as sure as can be, yes.

Because if you aren't 100% sure the striations, dendrites and contours in a sample connotes ONLY season changes, then you will have error - possibly compounded depending on what neighborhood your solution is in - and what else you have assumed.

Nothing is 100% sure. Especially so in science.

"Testable" isn't accuracy. Everything should be testable; it doesn't say anything about the accuracy of an assertion if you begin with error, assumptions, or axioms based on nonlinear, nonconstant parameters.

Except that the opposite is true.
If your model is wrong, why would testing the model yield succesfull results?
That makes no sense at all.

If you ignore that error from the beginning carries over through operations, then it all works out - like using r=3 for a unit ball, or 3 for pi.

If you use 3 for pi, then your application of that, will not be succesfull.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So is accuracy - both are subjective, which drives my point even further.

I'm kind of wondering what your larger point is though....
What are you complaining about, really?

Sounds like you are trying to say that all scientists have been "doing it wrong" for the past 300 years or something.

There exists absolute certainties, axioms, and so on down the "vindcation" ladder. If someone isn't absolutely certain of something, then they need to stop "prophesying
" Stop making assertions as if you ARE absolutely certain, because laypersons will take it and run - even scientists.

I'm unaware of a single instance in which a scientists asserted "absolute certainty" about anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And, how else are you going to say something is CORRECT, or TRUE without absolutes?

Provisionally.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Academia makes proclamations of absolute truth or knowledge? I'd like to see some examples.

Does William Lame Craig count as "academia"?
Because apologists like him, make absolute knowledge claims all the time....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Anything that is phrased "scientific fact" fits that archetype. You have already seen examples of this - the most notable is evolution, stationed as scientific fact.

Maybe you should try to explain the difference between a "fact" and a "scientific fact".

Hint: the "scientific" part does not refer to absolutes.

 

[Larniavc]

No need to patronize me, and I have explicitly stated what should be expected of academia: transparency. It is that simple.

There is transparency. You simply read the journal the research is published in.

Then you critically evaluate it. What could be more transparent?

 

[Larniavc]

And, how else are you going to say something is CORRECT, or TRUE without absolutes?

Tentatively.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Nobel Prize is reserved for those who prove all their peers to being right...

No. Nobody gets a prize, Nobel or otherwise, for doing unoriginal research and by establishing that what was already known to be accurate, is indeed accurate.

 

[just a believing guy]

No. Nobody gets a prize, Nobel or otherwise, for doing unoriginal research and by establishing that what was already known to be accurate, is indeed accurate.

The Nobel Prize is reserved for those who prove all their peers to being wrong...