Science Denial

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Get over yourself, it was a figure of speech to drive a point home.

That point being that no glory or fame or prizes will be coming to those scientists who just "agree" with the research / discoveries of peers.

 

[just a believing guy]

Get over yourself, it was a figure of speech to drive a point home.

That point being that no glory or fame or prizes will be coming to those scientists who just "agree" with the research / discoveries of peers.

Scientists who just agree with their peers are no scientists at all, and they make up the majority of the scientists. Which implies that science is not credible without the extraordinary scientists, who are, let's be realistic, few.

 

[Larniavc]

Scientists who just agree with their peers are no scientists at all, and they make up the majority of the scientists. Which implies that science is not credible without the extraordinary scientists, who are, let's be realistic, few.

That does not happen. One may reach similar conclusions to other researchers in the field but without evaluating the evidence someone would not simply agree with someone else for the sake of it and still call themselves scientists.

On a science degree one of the fundamental things we get taught to to always evaluate the original research, rather than just agreeing.

Have you had accademic training is the sciences?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Hmm I was wrong about everything.

 

[just a believing guy]

That does not happen. One may reach similar conclusions to other researchers in the field but without evaluating the evidence someone would not simply agree with someone else for the sake of it and still call themselves scientists.

On a science degree one of the fundamental things we get taught to to always evaluate the original research, rather than just agreeing.

Have you had accademic training is the sciences?

What one gets taught and what happens in reality are two very different things. Take stealing of scientific ideas for example. Science is far from moral, far from the ideal people like you are trying to picture it to be.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Scientists who just agree with their peers are no scientists at all

That's probably one of the most ridiculous things you've said so far.
So what are you saying... that a person can only be considered a scientist, if that person disagrees with all other scientists about everything?

A physicist isn't "really a physicist" if he agrees with Einstein concerning E = mc² or relativity or what-have-you?

Be serious please.

Which implies that science is not credible without the extraordinary scientists, who are, let's be realistic, few.

"science is not credible" - written on a device that can't exist without quantum physics.

Awesome.

 

[Jimmy D]

Take stealing of scientific ideas for example. Science is far from moral, far from the ideal people like you are trying to picture it to be.

A plumber stole my watch once ..... plumbing is immoral!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What one gets taught and what happens in reality are two very different things. Take stealing of scientific ideas for example. Science is far from moral, far from the ideal people like you are trying to picture it to be.

Science is a method of inquiry. Not an agent capable of moral (or immoral) behaviour.

 

[just a believing guy]

That's probably one of the most ridiculous things you've said so far.
So what are you saying... that a person can only be considered a scientist, if that person disagrees with all other scientists about everything?

A physicist isn't "really a physicist" if he agrees with Einstein concerning E = mc² or relativity or what-have-you?

Be serious please.




"science is not credible" - written on a device that can't exist without quantum physics.

Awesome.

Yes, that's what I am saying. And I'm seroius.

 

[RickG]

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

That's an excellent observation, there are numerous terms that when used in a scientific context have quite different meanings than that of the general dictionary layman terms. For example: theory, hypothesis, model, significant, skeptic, fact, to name a few.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's an excellent observation, there are numerous terms that when used in a scientific context have quite different meanings than that of the general dictionary layman terms. For example: theory, hypothesis, model, significant, skeptic, fact, to name a few.

Child.

 

[RickG]

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.

That's a non sequitur example.

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.

Another non sequitur example.

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

Actual observed and recorded data is not error, it is fact.

The scientists asserting AGW don't even know if this is a part of a 12,000 year periodic change -

Yes "WE" do! It is straight forward chemistry. There is a unique signature difference between CO2 released from burning fossil fuels, an anthropogenic source, and that of naturally occurring CO2, through carbon isotope ratios. Before the industrial revolution and going back back hundreds of thousands of years, tree rings, ice cores, speleothems, and MOS, show no fossil fuel CO2 signature. Since the beginning of the the industrial revolution, the signature appears and grows with the increasing amount of atmospheric CO2 for 280 ppmv pre-industrial to presently 404 ppmv.

Sources:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.

Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.

Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79

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.

How is using data in scientific research starting with error?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, that's what I am saying. And I'm seroius.

It's ridiculous. I don't know what else to say.

 

[Michael]

That's an excellent observation, there are numerous terms that when used in a scientific context have quite different meanings than that of the general dictionary layman terms. For example: theory, hypothesis, model, significant, skeptic, fact, to name a few.

Meh. Frankly after reading the 2006 paper that claimed to find "proof" of dark matter, I'm not convinced that scientists actually use those terms consistently either. I often hear the mainstream use the term "big bang theory", or "big bang model" even though the big bang concept is based upon 4 different hypothetical entities and/or processes.

Evolutionary "theory" and/or gravity "theory" tends to be used pretty consistently, but not every scientific idea actually deserves the title of "theory".

 

[Speedwell]

Scientists who just agree with their peers are no scientists at all, and they make up the majority of the scientists. Which implies that science is not credible without the extraordinary scientists, who are, let's be realistic, few.

You are right in that a scientist who "just" agreed with his peers is no scientist. A scientist who agrees with his peers because he has examined and tested their work for himself is a real scientist. Much of the work of a real scientist consists of testing and verifying the work of other scientists--which is why the consensus of science is reliable.

 

[Michael]

You are right in that a scientist who "just" agreed with his peers is no scientist. A scientist who agrees with his peers because he has examined and tested their work for himself is a real scientist. Much of the work of a real scientist consists of testing and verifying the work of other scientists--which is why the consensus of science is reliable.

I think that's true as it relates to empirical physical processes that can be tested and verified in controlled experimentation, but it's less true as it relates to hypotheses that defy such empirical cause/effect testing.

 

[Speedwell]

I think that's true as it relates to empirical physical processes that can be tested and verified in controlled experimentation, but it's less true as it relates to hypotheses that defy such empirical cause/effect testing.

But agreement with one's peers that an hypothesis is useful or interesting is on a different level than agreement that its predictions have been empirically verified.

 

[4x4toy]

You are right in that a scientist who "just" agreed with his peers is no scientist. A scientist who agrees with his peers because he has examined and tested their work for himself is a real scientist. Much of the work of a real scientist consists of testing and verifying the work of other scientists--which is why the consensus of science is reliable.

The weather man at WSPA 7 and other local stations were so scientifically convinced we'd have 6-8 inches of snow 8 weeks ago that the county schools shut down day before .. It took me no time to shovel 8" of no accumulation .. .. Science is good but it ain't God

 

[Larniavc]

What one gets taught and what happens in reality are two very different things. Take stealing of scientific ideas for example. Science is far from moral, far from the ideal people like you are trying to picture it to be.

How exactly do you 'steal' scientific ideas? And could you explain how this is relevant to the topic?

Do you have any relevant education in the sciences?

 

[Michael]

But agreement with one's peers that an hypothesis is useful or interesting is on a different level than agreement that its predictions have been empirically verified.

The term 'empirically verified' can get messy, particularly as it relates to 'hypothetical' entities and claims. For instance, how would we currently empirically verify that gravitons are the carrier particle of gravity as is claimed in QM definitions of gravity? How would we "empirically" verify that long lived forms of exotic matter exist? A whole lot of "predictions" that were made by exotic matter proponents have been falsified in the lab at LHC, LUX, PandaX, etc.

Without real experiments with actual control mechanisms to work with, the term 'empirically verified' becomes highly debatable. That's certainly true as it relates to hypothetical physics on the smallest and largest scales.