Science Denial

[just a believing guy]

DP

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Consensus does not say anything about the accuracy of the science; it is a measure of the academic social atmosphere.

Again, repeating an experiment with the same flawed data, and producing the same flawed results says nothing about the accuracy of the data. It means you did the experiment right.

We don't need more people reproducing/regurgitating the same results; we need mathematicians and scientists who aren't afraid of academic backlash, and who are confident and bold enough to say, "the data is wrong!" That way, we can stop producing the same ludicrous results that always seem to need scaling, and possibly move on toward producing real accurate results.

But, this will NEVER happen until their is a social paradigm shift in what information is credible - and a shift in especially how layperson choose to (dis)trust their academic "authorities," who also happen to be human.

This phenomenon is fully immersive.

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...

 

[AV1611VET]

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,

How about we just give you guys your fame and glory and just skip the proof?

Matthew 6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An ice core and fossil analysis is data incorporated for the purposes of making reasonable extrapolations, assumptiojs, postulates and axioms for the model.

It is not a snapshot in the past, because the dating method has error, and you are still extrapolating data from time-dependent data for which your location is not t=ti, the incident time interval.

Apparantly you don't realise that you can literally count winter/summer cycles in ice cores.

You don't need any "crazy radio metric dating" things - I know you people get upset about that, for some reason.

All you need to be able to do is counting layers.
Kind of like with tree rings, but more accurate.

Also, in that ice you can find little bubbles. Those bubbles contain air. That air is from the era in which the bubble formed. So all you need to do is, again, count the layers till the one you found the bubble in et voila: you can study the composition of the air X years ago. Directly. No assumptions necessary. It's right there.


You can continue now in misrepresenting how ice cores work and go into full-blown denial mode again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How about we just give you guys your fame and glory and just skip the proof?

Matthew 6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

I'm gonna give this random nonsense comment an equally sensible and random response...

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm gonna give this random nonsense comment an equally sensible and random response...

Hey ... I'm just a random mutation responding to chemical impulses in my cerebral cortex.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

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...

No it isnt. Plenty of the fame and glory is unfounded, psychological and social ransom of the mind, and projections of our own shortcomings made manifest in other objects we see as incredible, or to be looked up to.

If you truly believe accolades ONLY go to scientists that ALL OF THEIR PEERS to be wrong...

then, you need to take a few Ethics and Morality in Science seminars to see just how many "discoveries" were stolen, forged or downright push despite fact. You should learn the basics in academic politics, such as blacklisting, removal of scholarly articles because of dissident theory or "insubordinstion," and nullification of grant money. It isn't a joke.

 

[RickG]

An ice core and fossil analysis is data incorporated for the purposes of making reasonable extrapolations, assumptions, postulates and axioms for the model.

Dating methods are not models, what is important in dating methods is "precision" and "accuracy". Accuracy refers to the degree of correspondence between the true age of a sample and that obtained by the dating process. Precision relates to the statistical uncertainty that is associated with any physical or chemical analysis used in determining age.

It is not a snapshot in the past, because the dating method has error, and you are still extrapolating data from time-dependent data for which your location is not t=ti, the incident time interval.

Yes it is a snapshot of the past. As in all science, statistical uncertainty is what is important. A value statistical uncertanity of 95% or higher, or if one wishes to express the error margin it would be 5% or less, both mean the same thing. In dating methods most dates obtained generally fall in the error range of 2% or less.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Apparantly you don't realise that you can literally count winter/summer cycles in ice cores.

You don't need any "crazy radio metric dating" things - I know you people get upset about that, for some reason.

All you need to be able to do is counting layers.
Kind of like with tree rings, but more accurate.

Also, in that ice you can find little bubbles. Those bubbles contain air. That air is from the era in which the bubble formed. So all you need to do is, again, count the layers till the one you found the bubble in et voila: you can study the composition of the air X years ago. Directly. No assumptions necessary. It's right there.


You can continue now in misrepresenting how ice cores work and go into full-blown denial mode again.

It is arbitrary. Counting ice cores, then EXTRAPOLATING that dating method over axiomatic, or postulated parameters is exactly the type of error in practice I am talking about. It is based on error, based on error, based on assumptions that are ignorant of spontaneous, nonlinear, nonconstant variables that contribute to a circumstance. No one was around when these samples evolved to their state; the assumption is that a reasonable dating method can be used by these methods - which is assumptive and introduces compound error.

As I said, if you are modelling a smile UNIT BALL, and you neglect to use r=1, but instead use r=1.2, then the calculations of answers that use this parameter r will begin with 20% error.

If I use this parameter for a volume I need, that error goes to 73%. And, when you use this erroneous value for stochastic modelling, the error compounds even more. That is why 's many scientists are coming under fire for "tweaking" results: you cannot get an accurate result if you start from error.

Error often comes in the form of the neglect of parameters otherwise unknown, or assumptions extrapolated over a time scale much longer than the interval of raw data for which you have.

As said before - perhaps facetious albeit in seriousness - that unless you have raw data from a time interval chosen, you don't know if an x-man, alien, time traveller, random mythical beast, or natural spontaneous terrestrial phenomenon otherwise unknown causes changes in concentrations

On a very basic level, even Fick''s Law requires initial conditions (i.e. steady state) and boundary conditions. Often these are assumed, or are derived straight from mathematic necessity. In the case of assumption, it means error. The luckier theories demand something based on mathematics (like neutrinos, string theory, etc.)

That isn't the case with Climate Change - especially when trying to model a stochastic system with an almost "infinite" time scale - using 0.00000075% of that system's data.

If yu neglect the first step of starting with error produces error, then of course you can justify the science. Uniqueness of solution is an important mathematical quality; AGW isn't the unique solution to global climate change.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No it isnt.

Yes, it is.

Newton, Darwin, Hawking, Einstein, Galilleo, Farraday, ....

None of these people, that literally everybody knows about and who have towns, streets and buildings named after them, are scientists that "upheld the status quo".

Plenty of the fame and glory is unfounded, psychological and social ransom of the mind, and projections of our own shortcomings made manifest in other objects we see as incredible, or to be looked up to.

Really? So Einstein, for example, didn't do anything worth celebrating?

If you truly believe accolades ONLY go to scientists that ALL OF THEIR PEERS to be wrong...

It most certainly doesn't go to scientists who write a paper saying "yeps, I agree with my peers" and "nope, I got nothing else to contribute".

then, you need to take a few Ethics and Morality in Science seminars to see just how many "discoveries" were stolen, forged or downright push despite fact. You should learn the basics in academic politics, such as blacklisting, removal of scholarly articles because of dissident theory or "insubordinstion," and nullification of grant money. It isn't a joke.

Is this step one in claiming gigantic conspiracies in global scientific circles among thousands, even millions, of people reaching over multiple generations of scientists?

It sure smells like it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is arbitrary. Counting ice cores, then EXTRAPOLATING that dating method over axiomatic, or postulated parameters is exactly the type of error in practice I am talking about.

There is no "extrapolation".

It is counting layers, each layer being the result of a winter/summer cycle.

It is based on error, based on error, based on assumptions that are ignorant of spontaneous, nonlinear, nonconstant variables that contribute to a circumstance. No one was around when these samples evolved to their state; the assumption is that a reasonable dating method can be used by these methods - which is assumptive and introduces compound error.

The formation mechanism of these layers is quite testable, actually.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Dating methods are not models, what is important in dating methods is "precision" and "accuracy". Accuracy refers to the degree of correspondence between the true age of a sample and that obtained by the dating process. Precision relates to the statistical uncertainty that is associated with any physical or chemical analysis used in determining age.

You cannot be accurate when you start from error. It is that simple. Assumptions are not accuracy.

If you knew for sure that, for example, dating methods have ZERO error, and that a biological or frozen sample is POSITIVELY from a certain period - and that the concentrations of chemicals in the sample is POSITIVELY suggestive of certain events, then maybe there is a point.

But, there is no positivity when you are trying to determine properties of a dynamic system using frozen samples - and assuming the concentration inside can be correctly dated, and information can be accurately derived.

That is a lot of CERTAINTY that is required. But, forgetting all of that: you cannot give an accurate answer to a system starting with error.

Yes it is a snapshot of the past.

No, that is an assumption based on the concentration of particles, magnetic alignments and the idea that something frozen-in has been that way for anmeasurable amont ofntime comparable to the confirmation of dating method.

This is a matter of non-unique solutions providing possible reasonable results. It is assumption - introductory error.

As in all science, statistical uncertainty is what is important. A value statistical uncertanity of 95% or higher, or if one wishes to express the error margin it would be 5% or less, both mean the same thing.

Uncertainty, especially in measurement, is related to the amount of precision in a measurement, not its accuracy. If I take a measurement of a man, and my ruler is in millimeters, but I can only get a definitive and reasonable estimate by focusing on centimeters, then my uncertainty will be measured in centimeters - as in 1.75 cm with a precision/uncertainty of +/- 2 cm. If the man is actually 200 cm tall, then my error would be 12%. If i measure the man several times, then i can find other statistical information about the system.

If we dont know the correct theoretical value of a system, we dont know what its value should be. That is error from the beginning. As "science" goes on, and with some help from luck, sometimes it works out. Sometimes.

In dating methods most dates obtained generally fall in the error range of 2% or less.

Based on what? How can the real date of a system or sample actually be determined if it from the past? You use extrapolation from physical properties, historical essence, and methods assumed to work.

If you ignore that beginning with error carriers error over operations, then it can certainly work.

 

[RickG]

There is no "extrapolation".

It is counting layers, each layer being the result of a winter/summer cycle.

View attachment 194834



The formation mechanism of these layers is quite testable, actually.

Not only are there very distinguishable winter/summer layers, but specific ions and pollen and other particulates distinguish seasons within, i.e., winter, spring, summer and fall.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Yes, it is.

Newton, Darwin, Hawking, Einstein, Galilleo, Farraday, ....

None of these people, that literally everybody knows about and who have towns, streets and buildings named after them, are scientists that "upheld the status quo".

Of course they did. 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.

But, they didn't vindicate themselves to ALL OF THEIR PEERS to gain their celebrity. In fact, many of the "godfathers of science" disagreed with each other - while individually racking up accolades amongst the populace. Hawkins is an example of this.

And, to this day we are still refining QM, GR, SR and other theory. The very fact that these people are so known is a consequence of a paradigm shift in their intellectual favors. It isn't because they "out-awesomed" everyone else. They provided something that worked at the time - and now in this time it doesn't work.



[QuoteReally? So Einstein, for example, didn't do anything worth celebrating?[/quote]

Did I name him specifically?

It most certainly doesn't go to scientists who write a paper saying "yeps, I agree with my peers" and "nope, I got nothing else to contribute".

Marginalization of argument.

It doesn't address: "If you truly believe accolades ONLY go to scientists that ALL OF THEIR PEERS to be wrong..."

Because, that is what you said - that the accolades go to the scientists that prove all of their peers to be wrong. That is categorically and grossly untrue

Is this step one in claiming gigantic conspiracies in global scientific circles among thousands, even millions, of people reaching over multiple generations of scientists?

It sure smells like it.

Ah, so now it is a conspiracy... I am assuming the tin foil hat connotation is what you meant, because conspiracy is an actual crime that is committed in politics and academia.

I explained exactly what I meant several times - it should have been clear. Compartmentalization prevents a conspiracy from rolling downhill. I even said many scientists are flat out unaware of how their intellectual property is being used.

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

 

[Ygrene Imref]

There is no "extrapolation".

It is counting layers, each layer being the result of a winter/summer cycle.

View attachment 194834

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? 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.

That is extrapolation of information based on parameters and data you have.

The formation mechanism of these layers is quite testable, actually.

"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.

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.

 

[Skreeper]

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.

It seems like you think without absolute certainty we can't be sure that something is correct. Well that's a shame because absolute certainty is practically impossible.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

It seems like you think without absolute certainty we can't be sure that something is correct. Well that's a shame because absolute certainty is practically impossible.

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

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.

And, how else are you going to say something is CORRECT, or TRUE without absolutes? Either we have absolutes or we don't - and if we dont, then we cannot assert something as if it is correct, or true absolutely.

But, your comment is still unrelated to my point, although it an ironic response. The point is you cannot be accurate when you start your measurements with ERROR. It is that simple.

If you ignore that starting with error produces error through operations, then everything else works out.

 

[Skreeper]

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

We can say something is most likely true or that the available evidence points to something being true. That may not mean that it is absolutely true but that is the best we got. Absolute knowledge is impossible to obtain.

When we say something is correct or true, then all we are saying is that all the available evidence points to it being true.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

We can say something is most likely true or that the available evidence points to something being true. That may not mean that it is absolutely true but that is the best we got. Absolute knowledge is impossible to obtain.

When we say something is correct or true, then all we are saying is that all the available evidence points to it being true.

Yea, maybe that is what YOU mean - which is basically transparent.

But, academia does not work like this (I said academia, not science.)

 

[Skreeper]

But, academia does not work like this (I said academia, not science.)

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