Time for a "reverse-Ferguson?"
Quote: TwirdmanRejecting readily apparent science does not make you a free thinker it makes you a fool. Evolution is as an established a scientific theory as the theory of gravity, actually evolution is more established but lets go with equally, and yet conservatives reject that for no other reason then a non science book tells them to. We would roundly mock someone who said oh no gravity isn't real we are just held down by angels so we have every right to roundly mock the people who say evolution doesn't happen.
Evolution while established leaves as many questions as it answers. Liberals are the ones with closed minds here, insisting that there is no higher power that even *might* be directing things. I know few conservatives who deny evolution outright, they instead want to teach that hey, this might not all be random. Until someone wants to tell me why fish all of the sudden decided to walk, I will go with a power helping direct things.
Quote:But keep thinking of yourself as an enlightened person who doesn't need to follow the established science and story its the way every conspiracy theorist shroud themselve's. Oh you believe the Twin Towers were brought down by planes and not controlled demolition well clearly you are just a sheep walking through the world with your eyes closed. Same with moon landing, Kennedy assassination, and oh so many more. interestingly science denialism does share many similarities with those conspiracy theories.
IIRC the Bush-haters are the ones who keep thinking the Towers fell by a controlled demolition. Unless Rosie O'Donnell is actually a conservative! Any conservative I know understands that it would be impossible to hide the set-up of this magnitude. Nor do I see conservatives denying the moon landing.
As to JFK, pretty much everyone agrees Oswald may have been the shooter, but he was no run-of-the-mill liberal shooter, much happened to allow all of the events to happen, starting with his return from the USSR with a bride in tow. But if you are the type to believe in Global Warming just because "the scientists say it is so" then you are they kind of sheep who will believe Oswald was just some normal guy or anything else that government and pop culture spit out. I would rather use my mind.
Maybe no longer the center, but eugenics, as advocated by Margaret Sanger, continues this day with even broader effects, thanks to the now immense business that she founded.Quote: MrWarmthEugenics was a center of the scientific research community for decades until Hitler's Nazis took the use and philosophy of the "science" to its inevitable ending point and forever stigmatized it.
Faith, among various definitions, means "belief without evidence". And that's exactly what evolutionists have -- in evolution.
What part got you about the WTC conspiracy? Was if that steel couldn't melt at the temperatures in the fire? Too bad steel doesn't need to actually melt to lose its strength. What happens if you have a weakened support beam and have a floor crashing down on it? It'll just stay up, because after all, it isn't melted, right?
Or was it the way the floors came crashing down, as if by a controlled demolition? Well guess what. When very large buildings are designed, they aren't designed to topple over sideways and f*** everything up in their path. They're built in a way such that if something doesn't happen, like a gigantic earthquake, the building falls down onto/into itself.
Why do science and creationists beliefs have to be mutually exclusive and diametrically opposed? If that is the absolute position that either takes, they lose credibility, imo.Quote: TwirdmanQuote:Rejecting readily apparent science does not make you a free thinker it makes you a fool. Evolution is as an established a scientific theory as the theory of gravity, actually evolution is more established but lets go with equally, and yet conservatives reject that for no other reason then a non science book tells them to. We would roundly mock someone who said oh no gravity isn't real we are just held down by angels so we have every right to roundly mock the people who say evolution doesn't happen.
Can you site 6k scientists or even six that will swear the sky is blue? Just wondering? http://www.universetoday.com/74020/what-color-is-the-sky/Quote:Also a loser analogy would be having never seen the sky, since these people have no knowledge or training to understand the underlying data, having 6,000+ scientist tell you the sky is blue and then going nope definitely not the sky is clearly purple because it says so in this fairytale.
AFAIK, AZ has never taken the position that the "towers" were brought down in any other manner than what is the common belief. I however question why bldg. seven came down. AZ and I never came to agreement on that. Since that discussion however there is an added 1k engineers who agree that bldg seven didn't fall at freefall speed and land in it's own footprint because airplanes hit two bldgs a block away. http://rememberbuilding7.org/Quote:But keep thinking of yourself as an enlightened person who doesn't need to follow the established science and story its the way every conspiracy theorist shroud themselve's. Oh you believe the Twin Towers were brought down by planes and not controlled demolition well clearly you are just a sheep walking through the world with your eyes closed.
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/344-building-7-implosion-the-smoking-gun-of-911.html
This is as of Dec. 16th, 2014 http://www.ae911truth.org/
If you can scientifically explain why bldg, seven, a block away fell at freefall speed, the first and only steel reinforced building ever to do so because of fire, I would like to hear it. Feel free to debunk 2500 architects and engineers. If you can do so, I will wear a "tin foil" hat proudly, for daring to ask questions that deserve answers. Until then it seems you are creating strawman arguments and trying to knock them down, in order to support your position.
Quote: AZDuffmanRumblings on MSNBC?
Yes, it is called "free thinking." If six people tell me the moon is in the sky at noon when I can see it is the sun, or that the sky is green I am not going to believe them, even if they are "scientists." I am going to check their information and compare it to what else I know and have experienced. If it does not wash, I am going to not believe.
Another way of putting it is be a sheepdog and not one of the sheep.
MSNBC I'm sure reported it but I first saw the thinking ahead of the 2012 election in articles in Psychology Today and National Review. A Google search should find those articles pretty easily. In other words, the issue was trying to gain momentum in (otherwise) respected forums. It's crap, of course, but try convincing a ... well ... mental liberal of it and you'll see how you're received.
Quote: TwirdmanRejecting readily apparent science does not make you a free thinker it makes you a fool. Evolution is as an established a scientific theory as the theory of gravity, actually evolution is more established but lets go with equally, and yet conservatives reject that for no other reason then a non science book tells them to. We would roundly mock someone who said oh no gravity isn't real we are just held down by angels so we have every right to roundly mock the people who say evolution doesn't happen.
This thinking has two edges ... it's also foolish to believe "science" that doesn't exist or isn't readily apparent (whatever that means). If "readily apparent" were the standard, then atomic theory and relativity would never have been established. The danger isn't just the rejection of fact, but the acceptance as fact of things that aren't.
FWIW, conservatism doesn't reject evolution, so that's a straw man argument. Certain faiths reject evolution as the vehicle for which man became what he is today, and while evolution may explain the body, it doesn't explain the soul (or whatever you want to call it, which is a major part of the human experience).
But no political philosophy or faith that I know of rejects natural selection. Nobody believes that flies can't adapt to become immune to an insecticide. Science proves that. There is, however, a major difference in whether or not that acquired immunity makes it any closer to being something else, say, a bird. Science doesn't prove that. Maybe it will, but not yet.
OTOH, liberals accept as fact global warming due to man's activity, which is far from it. They also accept as fact that liberal solutions to things like race relations, poverty, income inequality, health care, etc., etc. work when just a simple look about you will strongly show otherwise. Obama himself said race relations are better now than they were before he took office. If the liberal solution worked, then ... well ... after 50 or so years of Great Society, it should be working. But it's not.
If you're up on the prevailing scientific theory of life's origin on earth, you'll learn that it's no longer believed life spontaneously arose here, but rather was transferred on a comet or some other interstellar vehicle.
Your major mistake in putting faith in science is that science always improves and changes the understanding of the world around us. Science is, basically, watching stuff and figuring out how it works so you can repeat it and/or predict occurrences around you. That's all. Any look back is a guess ... maybe a very educated guess, but a guess nonetheless, and should not be assigned the repeatable/predictable status that truly scientific things have.
We knew long before the rise of the scientific method that you had to f*ck to make a baby. The absence of Science as an explanatory vehicle is not the same as an absence of understanding, and Science simply does not (yet) explain the arising of the human soul or why ants can get along with each other but humans can't.
Quote: petroglyph
AFAIK, AZ has never taken the position that the "towers" were brought down in any other manner than what is the common belief. I however question why bldg. seven came down. AZ and I never came to agreement on that. Since that discussion however there is an added 1k engineers who agree that bldg seven didn't fall at freefall speed and land in it's own footprint because airplanes hit two bldgs a block away. http://rememberbuilding7.org/
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/344-building-7-implosion-the-smoking-gun-of-911.html
This is as of Dec. 16th, 2014 http://www.ae911truth.org/
Correct, I believe the towers came down because of the fires weakening the steel and then the collapse (IOW, the "common belief.") I once saw an angle where you could actually see the top section "break" then it all fell. The break was near where the planes hit and it is hard to describe in words.
As to Building 7, I believe the fires weakened the steel and it collapsed. For it to have been pre-planned would mean a team of demo experts staging explosives and drilling to place them, undetected, for perhaps a month. That is just silly.
Anyone who has welded or done work on a car knows steel acts weird when it gets super-heated. For example, you break a bolt so you heat it to crack it. Heat a weld and it weakens. Heat steel and it gets soft and bends. Any or all of these things can break a few stress points and cause a chain reaction. Again, anyone who has done work on a car or demo on a house knows once you weaken part the rest can just snap apart.
The exact reason is only important to learn how to make better buildings in the future. Seven is gone.
Fire weakens steel's tensile strength. This happened with only one truck on steel much beefier than that used in the WTC. Unless, of course, the Bush Administration also plotted the destruction of this overpass.
As best I understand it, only one floor had to be weakened enough to fail ... could be any floor from 1 to 110. When that floor failed, it fell to the floor below (probably also weakened by heat and under the impact of several tons falling 12 feet), which failed, and so on and so on. Everything above the failed floor fell when its support was removed ... at least, I've never seen the higher floors of a building suspended in the air while the floors under it are being built.
Such is the belief that must be held by a WTC conspiracist, which is why they're insane and aren't worth talking to.
Quote: MrWarmthOTOH, liberals accept as fact global warming due to man's activity.
You overstate, but thanks anyway. Better than conservative ideologue idiocy.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Quote: AZDuffmanEvolution while established leaves as many questions as it answers. Liberals are the ones with closed minds here, insisting that there is no higher power that even *might* be directing things. I know few conservatives who deny evolution outright, they instead want to teach that hey, this might not all be random. Until someone wants to tell me why fish all of the sudden decided to walk, I will go with a power helping direct things.
IIRC the Bush-haters are the ones who keep thinking the Towers fell by a controlled demolition. Unless Rosie O'Donnell is actually a conservative! Any conservative I know understands that it would be impossible to hide the set-up of this magnitude. Nor do I see conservatives denying the moon landing.
As to JFK, pretty much everyone agrees Oswald may have been the shooter, but he was no run-of-the-mill liberal shooter, much happened to allow all of the events to happen, starting with his return from the USSR with a bride in tow. But if you are the type to believe in Global Warming just because "the scientists say it is so" then you are they kind of sheep who will believe Oswald was just some normal guy or anything else that government and pop culture spit out. I would rather use my mind.
A large body of conservatives including politicians in fairly high positions are believes in a literal interpretation of the bible and a young earth which is a rejection of evolution. If you want to deny this I can pull up many quotes I can also pull up statistics on how many people accept a young earth "God did it" view on the creation of life and how it is more prevalent in conservative circles, though admittedly far more prevalent in liberals then I would like. Also very few scientist say God is definitely not involved in guiding evolution but that is a completely meaningless and unscientific statement. Could it be the case that God holds every molecule together sure but chemistry describes how things bond without need for a God. Similarly biology and evolution explain speciation without need for a god and saying God did it is not a useful or meaningful explanation. Also fish deciding to walk is a horrible strawman acting as though fish consciously and willingly decided to grow legs as though that is what evolutionist believe.
Also the 9/11 analogy and all others were to point out its the exact same line of thinking that gets science denial. I mean you rightly mock the truthers but why are they wrong and you right. I assume you lack degrees in both structural engineering and climatology so its not a matter of you being better equipped to examine one compared to the other so you believe the experts in one case and reject them in the other why?
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote:As to Building 7, I believe the fires weakened the steel and it collapsed. For it to have been pre-planned would mean a team of demo experts staging explosives and drilling to place them, undetected, for perhaps a month. That is just silly.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html
If that is the quality of your welding, it frightens me.<) Usually the weld is the strongest part of a connection. I have taken certification tests on mild steel as well as lo-hi, and have worked on cars it appears, longer than you have been walking. But that aside, I posted to t-man to get the hats placed more correctly as the hat man is no longer here.Quote:Anyone who has welded or done work on a car knows steel acts weird when it gets super-heated. For example, you break a bolt so you heat it to crack it. Heat a weld and it weakens. Heat steel and it gets soft and bends. Any or all of these things can break a few stress points and cause a chain reaction. Again, anyone who has done work on a car or demo on a house knows once you weaken part the rest can just snap apart.
Take one minute to look at this link.[above] Even were I to believe that this bldg. 7 came down do to fire [the only steel building in history to do so, per wiki, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center, from wiki "the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to have collapsed due to fire.[9]"], I still would not believe that it did not tip in any direction, but fell in it's own footprint, at freefall speed. It fell for a portion of the 47 stories as fast as dropping a bowling ball off of a tower. I don't see how that can happen. Thousands of architects and engineers agree.
You and I have already went here, I was done until someone wanted to give you the tin hat, which on this particular topic I felt was mine. I was just owning up.
The bldg. [7] fell 105 feet of the appx. 470 total feet in 2.25 seconds [in its own footprint] Quote; "Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.
Quote: TwirdmanA large body of conservatives including politicians in fairly high positions are believes in a literal interpretation of the bible and a young earth which is a rejection of evolution. If you want to deny this I can pull up many quotes I can also pull up statistics on how many people accept a young earth "God did it" view on the creation of life and how it is more prevalent in conservative circles, though admittedly far more prevalent in liberals then I would like. Also very few scientist say God is definitely not involved in guiding evolution but that is a completely meaningless and unscientific statement. Could it be the case that God holds every molecule together sure but chemistry describes how things bond without need for a God. Similarly biology and evolution explain speciation without need for a god and saying God did it is not a useful or meaningful explanation.
You would have to better explain what a "large body" is. And yes, saying "God is involved" is scientifically meaningless. But you see, that is what belief in a higher power is. Now, for the haters who cannot bear to utter the word "God" (and I met one, amazing, like a cross to a vampire when I made an off-the cuff remark) just substitute "Mother Nature" if it makes you more comfortable.
Quote:Also fish deciding to walk is a horrible strawman acting as though fish consciously and willingly decided to grow legs as though that is what evolutionist believe.
But that *is* what evolutionists believe! They believe life came from the water and moved to the land. Hence fish were one day fish and sometime later they decided to leave the water. Evolution says they left the water, belief in a God-guided world gives some of the "why."
Quote:Also the 9/11 analogy and all others were to point out its the exact same line of thinking that gets science denial. I mean you rightly mock the truthers but why are they wrong and you right. I assume you lack degrees in both structural engineering and climatology so its not a matter of you being better equipped to examine one compared to the other so you believe the experts in one case and reject them in the other why?
I have said before, I have made it statistically more than halfway through life. My life has been varied and exposed to many things. Not as many as most, but I will say I am the kind of guy who can do legal work during the day; come home and do the brakes on my car in the afternoon; then cook a complex meal after all of that. It used to be called being a well-rounded person. So in the case of the WTC I know enough about steel and structural design that I can make a judgment. And in the case of climatology I know enough about data and statistics as well as history and the fact that few trees last even 100 years that I can make a judgment.
IOW, I do not "deny science." I rather do not buy what is being sold blindly as do so many of the sheep do today.
Quote: AZDuffmanIOW, I do not "deny science." I rather do not buy what is being sold blindly as do so many of the sheep do today.
If mainstream science somehow ends up at Creationism I will follow it like a sheep. Likewise if mainstream science reverses and debunks current climatology concerns I will follow it there too. There is an actual process mainstream science follows though. So, unless that changes I fear no unusual deviations.
"Predictive" science, if it is not "real" science (as Mr Wartmh informs us, though I think plenty dispute that) is at the very least still doing probability.
Increasing probability doesn't mean that something will happen, but smart people bet on the side of increasing probability.
People who want to believe science was bought off, or the only science that was good was the outliers, fine. Fine. It's tinfoil hats for you.
It is true, that in order to believe in climate change as a former denier, you have to give Al Gore BJs for a year and like it. That's true. It's the law. Absolutely true.
Quote: rxwine
People who want to believe science was bought off, or the only science that was good was the outliers, fine. Fine. It's tinfoil hats for you.
I will take being called a "tinfoil hat" over buying what the believers are selling as the cost to believe is losing more and more freedom and higher and higher taxes. Follow the money. Gore lives in a mansion and tells believers to live in the 19th century.
And I am the crazy one?
Quote: AZDuffmanI will take being called a "tinfoil hat" over buying what the believers are selling as the cost to believe is losing more and more freedom and higher and higher taxes. Follow the money. Gore lives in a mansion and tells believers to live in the 19th century.
And I am the crazy one?
This follow the money line has always seemed incredibly idiotic to me. The people who wish to debunk global warming consist of major oil companies literally some of the largest corporations that have ever existed and yet somehow the money is in proving global warming exist. how does that make a lick of sense to you.
Quote: TwirdmanThis follow the money line has always seemed incredibly idiotic to me. The people who wish to debunk global warming consist of major oil companies literally some of the largest corporations that have ever existed and yet somehow the money is in proving global warming exist. how does that make a lick of sense to you.
There is far more money from corporations, government, and individuals giving push to global warming than there are against it. For every ExxonMobil against there is a G.E. and Goldman-Sachs giving it push. And don't forget how rich Algore has gotten by selling it.
Quote: rxwine"Predictive" science, if it is not "real" science (as Mr Wartmh informs us, though I think plenty dispute that) is at the very least still doing probability.
That is exactly the opposite of what I said:
Quote: MrWarmthYour major mistake in putting faith in science is that science always improves and changes the understanding of the world around us. Science is, basically, watching stuff and figuring out how it works so you can repeat it and/or predict occurrences around you. That's all. Any look back is a guess ... maybe a very educated guess, but a guess nonetheless, and should not be assigned the repeatable/predictable status that truly scientific things have.
Unedited, from my Dec 29 post time-stamped 13:35 on p. 31 of the thread.
What part of "Science, basically is watching stuff and figuring out how it work so you can ... predict occurrences around you." is wrong?
I said look-back "science" isn't science; it's an educated guess. As science improves, these guesses change. Nobody was there to see and record the moon form. What part of that is wrong? What happens to the current theory of why things are when a better one comes along?
Why would this post so threaten you that you have to lie about it, or at least not take the 5 seconds needed to read and understand it? And why would you use false information to try and discredit it?
One wonders what mental gymnastics must go on in someone's head where they have to at best perpetuate something that's easily look-up-able or at worst, outright lie, in order to discredit someone's post? It's right up there with Gruber, Lerner, Obama, "hands up don't shoot," chokehold, etc.
There seems to be a basic liberal inability to accept fact coupled with a defense of why it's not accepted, and then call conservatives crazy for taking fact at face value. This indicates that truth is still important or they wouldn't try to present something false as true. But it conflicts with some la-la land that they so want to be true that they delude themselves. Part sane, part insane. And, I would imagine, creates a great amount of tension.
As Aibileen Clark said in The Help, "All you do is lie and scare to try and get what you want. Aren't you tired, Miss Hilly? Aren't you tired?"
Quote: rxwineYou overstate, but thanks anyway. Better than conservative ideologue idiocy.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
There's nothing "scientific" about achieving consensus. That, by its nature and purpose, is political. Thanks for illustrating that "scientific" conclusions on global warming are, in fact, political.
Quote: MrWarmthThat is exactly the opposite of what I said:
Quote: MrWarmthYour major mistake in putting faith in science is that science always improves and changes the understanding of the world around us. Science is, basically, watching stuff and figuring out how it works so you can repeat it and/or predict occurrences around you. That's all. Any look back is a guess ... maybe a very educated guess, but a guess nonetheless, and should not be assigned the repeatable/predictable status that truly scientific things have.
I said look-back "science" isn't science; it's an educated guess. As science improves, these guesses change. Nobody was there to see and record the moon form. What part of that is wrong? What happens to the current theory of why things are when a better one comes along?
This is laughable. In that way cosmology, paleontology, geology, large parts of evolutionary biology, and climatology are not "real" sciences. This is absurd. Science is predicated on observations but the observations need not visual things happening at this exact moment. "look back" science as you call it has produced many accurate predictions and is just as much real science as experimental physics or chemistry. For instance for much of evolutionary biology we can look at fossils date them get accurate looks at how things change over time and predict exactly where in the strata a certain "missing link" should be found and we have done this. Just because someone isn't in a lab with beakers or lasers doesn't mean it is not scientific and you need a lot more then just "gut feels" to say that "look back" science produces no predictions since you are clearly wrong and many examples of your wrongness can be pointed out.
It just amazes me all the people who have no high level of exposure to real scientific research are somehow the experts on what real science should be and what the data says. I mean who needs a fancy Ph.D., a post doc, and then decades of actual work in the field when you have your folksy down home wisdom to prove all of their predictions and ideas wrong.
Quote: TwirdmanQuote: MrWarmthThat is exactly the opposite of what I said:
Quote: MrWarmthYour major mistake in putting faith in science is that science always improves and changes the understanding of the world around us. Science is, basically, watching stuff and figuring out how it works so you can repeat it and/or predict occurrences around you. That's all. Any look back is a guess ... maybe a very educated guess, but a guess nonetheless, and should not be assigned the repeatable/predictable status that truly scientific things have.
I said look-back "science" isn't science; it's an educated guess. As science improves, these guesses change. Nobody was there to see and record the moon form. What part of that is wrong? What happens to the current theory of why things are when a better one comes along?
This is laughable. In that way cosmology, paleontology, geology, large parts of evolutionary biology, and climatology are not "real" sciences. This is absurd. Science is predicated on observations but the observations need not visual things happening at this exact moment. "look back" science as you call it has produced many accurate predictions and is just as much real science as experimental physics or chemistry. For instance for much of evolutionary biology we can look at fossils date them get accurate looks at how things change over time and predict exactly where in the strata a certain "missing link" should be found and we have done this. Just because someone isn't in a lab with beakers or lasers doesn't mean it is not scientific and you need a lot more then just "gut feels" to say that "look back" science produces no predictions since you are clearly wrong and many examples of your wrongness can be pointed out.
It just amazes me all the people who have no high level of exposure to real scientific research are somehow the experts on what real science should be and what the data says. I mean who needs a fancy Ph.D., a post doc, and then decades of actual work in the field when you have your folksy down home wisdom to prove all of their predictions and ideas wrong.
So where are all these missing link fossils?
Quote: TwirdmanThis is laughable. In that way cosmology, paleontology, geology, large parts of evolutionary biology, and climatology are not "real" sciences. This is absurd. Science is predicated on observations but the observations need not visual things happening at this exact moment. "look back" science as you call it has produced many accurate predictions and is just as much real science as experimental physics or chemistry. For instance for much of evolutionary biology we can look at fossils date them get accurate looks at how things change over time and predict exactly where in the strata a certain "missing link" should be found and we have done this. Just because someone isn't in a lab with beakers or lasers doesn't mean it is not scientific and you need a lot more then just "gut feels" to say that "look back" science produces no predictions since you are clearly wrong and many examples of your wrongness can be pointed out.
Saying that my comment is laughable is to admit that your perspective on "scientific" look-back guesses is limited in the extreme, or that you are short-sighted in the extreme (i.e., you believe science has gone as far as it possibly can). Look-back guesses have changed throughout the ages as science has improved and built on itself. There is every reason to think that our boundaries of knowledge will increase in the future and the look-back "science" (i.e., the best guesses of our time) will soon become as laughable (to use your word) as the flat earth theory (which, by the way, was also arrived at by consensus).
I don't think it's wrong to take a best-guess on looking back based on the science we have now. I do think ... no, it simply is ... wrong to assign a look-back guess, however well-educated, the same repeatable/predictable status that truly scientific things have.
Quote: TwirdmanIt just amazes me all the people who have no high level of exposure to real scientific research are somehow the experts on what real science should be and what the data says. I mean who needs a fancy Ph.D., a post doc, and then decades of actual work in the field when you have your folksy down home wisdom to prove all of their predictions and ideas wrong.
Your comment does not appear to grasp the potential or limitations of science. Knowingly or not, you have placed your faith in the idea that science has come as far as it can come, and the look-back understanding of why we are here can never get any better than it is today.
If anything fails to grasp what "real science" is, it's the belief that it cannot get any better or provide a better understanding of our universe. It's a belief I don't share with you. Any amount of sarcasm or attempt to ridicule me does not change that.
1. Ask a Question
2. Do Background Research
3. Construct a Hypothesis
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6. Communicate Your Results
Which one of these steps is possible in look-back science? How would you do an experiment to, say, prove the formation of the moon?
They don't.
What they do is, they take the prevailing scientific knowledge and build, essentially, a legal case. For the moon, they take scientific knowledge of things such as gravity, materials science, etc., and construct a case that the moon was formed by impact from a planetoid.
Is it right? Maybe. Is it our best guess? Clearly, yes.
Is it scientific? No. It is, in fact, the Historical Method.
Google-search "historical method," you'll get something like, "using sciences and other primary information to form accounts of the past." It is, in fact, what we use in our legal system, or to prove George Washington or Jesus or Cro-Magnon Man existed. It is reliable, but it is not scientific.
THAT is what look-back "science" really is ... it's an attempt to form accounts of the past using the Historical Method. As sciences and other primary information changes, our best guesses change.
So ... who does not have an understanding of what science is?
NB - Since we use the Historical Method to, in some cases, impose capital punishment, then it is inconsistent to fully trust the Historical Method's application in origin theory but not fully trust it in jurisprudence. Our "evidence" in origin theory may be bad, and we may be, figuratively, "putting an innocent man to death."
Quote: TwirdmanThis is laughable. In that way cosmology, paleontology, geology, large parts of evolutionary biology, and climatology are not "real" sciences. This is absurd. Science is predicated on observations but the observations need not visual things happening at this exact moment. "look back" science as you call it has produced many accurate predictions and is just as much real science as experimental physics or chemistry. For instance for much of evolutionary biology we can look at fossils date them get accurate looks at how things change over time and predict exactly where in the strata a certain "missing link" should be found and we have done this. Just because someone isn't in a lab with beakers or lasers doesn't mean it is not scientific and you need a lot more then just "gut feels" to say that "look back" science produces no predictions since you are clearly wrong and many examples of your wrongness can be pointed out.
It just amazes me all the people who have no high level of exposure to real scientific research are somehow the experts on what real science should be and what the data says. I mean who needs a fancy Ph.D., a post doc, and then decades of actual work in the field when you have your folksy down home wisdom to prove all of their predictions and ideas wrong.
Hehe ... this one is just the gift that keeps on giving.
Cosmology, paleontology, geology, large parts of evolutionary biology, and climatology are all great fields that require immense brainpower and dedicated practitioners, of that there's no doubt. The sciences discovered in pursuit of these fields have changed our understanding of the universe. Nobody of any religion or political philosophy I know of opposes their existence, except maybe Muslims.
But, when you are honest with yourself, you must admit that they're much more akin to other sciences like law or economics. At least, I have not heard of a paleontologist, archaeologist, or evolutionary biologist who was not interested in explaining the past ... in fact, it's at the center of their field.
"Sciences" isn't really the right term but I don't think I'll ever be successful in changing that vernacular, so I'll go with it. May be "social sciences" is a better term. It doesn't change the point, though ... so long as we remember that our vernacular also still explicitly blames astrology for unfortunate events (dis-aster, or "bad star").
A paleontologist can add to science in the scientific sense, but that's not at the center of what they do. Rather, they (and these other sciences, including law and economics) are in ceaseless, relentless pursuit of reconstructing the past as best the available sciences and primary information allows.
Cosmologists only recently observed planets outside our own system - that is, primary information changed. Thank whatever-higher-power for that, or our understanding of the universe would be less today than it is.
As far as I know, archaeologists are still out in the field digging in search of improving their primary information. Thank whatever-higher-power for that, or our understanding of anthropology and ancient societies would be less today than it is.
Same with evolutionary biologists, lawyers, economists, etc.
Quote: MrWarmthSaying that my comment is laughable is to admit that your perspective on "scientific" look-back guesses is limited in the extreme, or that you are short-sighted in the extreme (i.e., you believe science has gone as far as it possibly can). Look-back guesses have changed throughout the ages as science has improved and built on itself. There is every reason to think that our boundaries of knowledge will increase in the future and the look-back "science" (i.e., the best guesses of our time) will soon become as laughable (to use your word) as the flat earth theory (which, by the way, was also arrived at by consensus).
I don't think it's wrong to take a best-guess on looking back based on the science we have now. I do think ... no, it simply is ... wrong to assign a look-back guess, however well-educated, the same repeatable/predictable status that truly scientific things have.
Your comment does not appear to grasp the potential or limitations of science. Knowingly or not, you have placed your faith in the idea that science has come as far as it can come, and the look-back understanding of why we are here can never get any better than it is today.
If anything fails to grasp what "real science" is, it's the belief that it cannot get any better or provide a better understanding of our universe. It's a belief I don't share with you. Any amount of sarcasm or attempt to ridicule me does not change that.
All science not just "look back" science improves with greater understanding. The theory of gravity is not "look back" science yet Newton's ideas were refined with general relativity and those ideas will most likely be overturned with some type of unified field theory or something of that nature. So is the study of gravity no longer science. Science is not meant to be and has never been an absolute unchangeable thing, with one exception being math where established theorems cannot be overturned, the greatest theory of today could be in tomorrows trash heap doesn't mean the work isn't science. Again you say predictable so I'm assuming you mean having predictive powers and "look back" science has that both in how certain bacteria will change and where in the rock layer a certain fossil can be both of these were predictions made due to advancements in evolutionary biology that are correct.
You do not get to arbitrarily redefine science because you think you know what you are talking about. I can guarantee you that all of these "look back" science do practice the scientific method and do make accurate and detailed predictions and are supported by a preponderance of evidence, now are they on an unshakable foundation no but neither is any human endeavor with the exception of mathematics.
You seem to think an experiment involves people in lab coats with beakers but all an experiment need be is some form of test that can falsify your hypothesis. So searching for fossils is a form of experiment and certain fossils if they existed could disprove our current understanding of evolution especially where they are found in the rock layer. Like a bunny in the Precambrian rock layer disproves evolution. As to your moon question there are many experiments one can do. There are computer simulations to show if certain hypothesis are physically possible, there are examination of the rock to see if composition is adequately explained by a certain hypothesis, and others.
Quote: TwirdmanYou do not get to arbitrarily redefine science because you think you know what you are talking about..
+1
here's a nice post from reddit on the subject of what is science.
Quote:According to your definition of science, a great deal of what gets funded as 'science' is actually not science at all. There is a well established division within the 'scientific' community between hypothesis driven and exploratory research, as a matter of fact. Apparently the latter half is just 'support', or something?
It seems like - on your definition - entire fields constituted of people who call themselves scientists, are not really science.
Let's suppose I spend 2 years working hard in the lab on a new project to characterize important factors for the motility of a parasite, in order to generate possible targets for drug discovery. I'll describe the kind of thing that might involve.
So suppose I knocked out a panel of genes in my parasite and saw that one of the gene-knockout strains had abnormal/ablated motility when looked at in the microscope. Then I break open some normal parasite cells and isolate the protein, after which I check to see if anything else comes out along with it (any other proteins binding to it, for instance). I see from this that it does interact with some other proteins, so I find out the amino acid sequence of each one.
Using the amino acid sequences, I search a database of the parasite's genome to see where the corresponding genes are - I find them there, and I use that knowledge to isolate the DNA of each gene from the parasite. Several of these genes were previously unknown. Not only that, but let's imagine I realize one of the genes is a well studied protein already known to have important roles in parasite motility - as a 'scientist', my pulse would be racing at this point.
So anyway, I put each gene (including the original gene I knocked out) inside a strain of E.coli so that I can make large amounts of protein for each on demand. I do that, then purify the proteins again in large quantities and I determine their crystal structures of each protein in a big interacting complex, from which I learn - just by looking - that my gene that I knocked out seems to play an important role in maintaining the structure of the already 'famous' protein.
Elated, I submit my work to the journal Science and my groundbreaking investigation is lauded as one of the most important within the field for years. But you know what? I discovered several new genes, one of which is important to the parasite's motility (and therefore infectivity), and discovered a key missing link in understanding the function of an already very well studied protein... didn't do any science though, according to you.
Neither did Rosalind Franklin, James Watson and Francis Crick do any science when they got the structure of DNA. Nor did the Human Genome Project when they found out so much about our own genetic make up. And actually, the whole disciplines of genomics, proteomics and transcriptomics? Not really science. Oh yeah - theoretical physics? Not science.
I would put it that any definition of science as exclusive as yours doesn't really capture what people mean by 'science', and for that reason should not be entertained.
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2jkgzi/cmv_actual_science_doesnt_start_until_you_have_a/
Quote: TwirdmanAll science not just "look back" science improves with greater understanding. The theory of gravity is not "look back" science yet Newton's ideas were refined with general relativity and those ideas will most likely be overturned with some type of unified field theory or something of that nature. So is the study of gravity no longer science. Science is not meant to be and has never been an absolute unchangeable thing, with one exception being math where established theorems cannot be overturned, the greatest theory of today could be in tomorrows trash heap doesn't mean the work isn't science. Again you say predictable so I'm assuming you mean having predictive powers and "look back" science has that both in how certain bacteria will change and where in the rock layer a certain fossil can be both of these were predictions made due to advancements in evolutionary biology that are correct.
You do not get to arbitrarily redefine science because you think you know what you are talking about. I can guarantee you that all of these "look back" science do practice the scientific method and do make accurate and detailed predictions and are supported by a preponderance of evidence, now are they on an unshakable foundation no but neither is any human endeavor with the exception of mathematics.
You seem to think an experiment involves people in lab coats with beakers but all an experiment need be is some form of test that can falsify your hypothesis. So searching for fossils is a form of experiment and certain fossils if they existed could disprove our current understanding of evolution especially where they are found in the rock layer. Like a bunny in the Precambrian rock layer disproves evolution. As to your moon question there are many experiments one can do. There are computer simulations to show if certain hypothesis are physically possible, there are examination of the rock to see if composition is adequately explained by a certain hypothesis, and others.
I'm not re-defining science or the scientific method. You are. You offer no thinking outside of your own opinion on the topic; at least, I don't see a link or a suggestion that sends me to a site that includes "Explain the Past" as part of the Scientific Method. I do see it when looking up the Historical Method.
Do I control the internet now? Is that what you would rather believe than face the reality that look-back "science" has, in fact, really been Historical all along? Occam's Razor would suggest the answer for you ... or am I re-defining that, too?
Science improves, of course it does, and thank whatever-higher-power that it does. That improved science is now used to construct (in some cases wholesale) new best-guesses of why things are the way they are. A bunny in the precambrian layer doesn't, in and of itself, prove or disprove anything. It's just there, adding to the primary information, which, in turn, may or may not require a new explanation.
Computer modeling, while predictive, is only as good as current science allows. Run a gravity model accounting for relativity vs. one that doesn't and you'll get very different results.
The thing is, such "bunnies" are found all the time, which is why new and revised explanations of the past are required all the time. At least, as I look back over the history of origin explanations, there are many, many revisions of it. Do you deny that they have changed? Or am I so in control of the internet that I've erased all previous iterations, too?
The look-back sciences do not practice the scientific method when they're attempting to explain past events. Please show me one experiment where the scientific method was used and the make-up of the paleontological record (or whatever) was successfully duplicated. You won't. You can't. It doesn't work that way. It's insane to believe it does. You will see, "Using today's science and the bunny we found, we explain this because yada-yada." But you won't see an experiment that duplicates it ... which is what Science is and does.
The "people in lab coats" comment is an intentional red herring and does not address this topic. What experimenters wear has nothing to do with it. What they do, though, has everything to do with it. Searching for fossils is not experimentation; no scientist would tell you it is. Why don't you ask one rather than try to tell me I haven't asked one? No scientist, or even any sane non-scientist, would try to actually convince someone that searching for fossils is the same as scientific experimentation.
Advances in science and primary information, and subsequent changes in Historical explanations, is not to be feared, other than for those who hold a zealotry and belief that cannot abide the possibility that, at some point, they might need to re-evaluate everything because they misplaced their faith. I don't know you but it seems that you harbor this fear. You perfectly describe the Historical Method and yet insist on labeling it Scientific. It is a denial that, until now, was probably sourced from not understanding what Science is, but now you know and can't justify it any more. Well, you can do what you want, but you won't ever be able to reconcile it.
Historical method conclusions are reliable, I'm fine with them. I'm fine with current explanations of moon origin, evolution, paleontology, whatever. But they are not, and should not be, given a place they simply cannot occupy.
I'm also perfectly comfortable that today's best-guess may change as science and primary information improves. I see it for what it is: a Historical conclusion that may change as the parameters that make it up (science, primary information, etc.). So what if it does change? No skin off my nose, I've got no self-worth wrapped up in it. If that's somehow offensive to you, well, I just don't know what to tell you.
* The universe is expanding and all galaxies are moving away from each other.
* The Milky Way and Andromeda will collide in however-many gazillions of years.
Did anyone else notice this? Is there some weird astronomical definition of "moving away" that includes "colliding," or is it possible to be both moving away from something and moving towards it at the same time?
Let's take a true repeatable/predictable science where the Scientific Method has been applied - spectroscopy. We know that elements have different spectrums, and that the same element will always emit the same spectrum. How do we know this? Because every time we set up an experiment, hydrogen (or helium or whatever) yields the same spectrum.
How do we know the sun (or any other star) contains hydrogen? Have we created a star in an experiment? Has someone mined the sun and brought back hydrogen? No. We compare the spectrum from the sun (or wherever) - something we gather as primary information - to what we know from Science (hydrogen emits a certain spectrum) and conclude that the sun (or whatever star) contains certain percentages of hydrogen.
Based on Science? Yes. Based on primary information? Umm ... yes. Scientific? No. Historical? Yes. The conclusion that the sun contains a certain percentage hydrogen is Historical.
This is a very good conclusion. Very reliable, very reasonable, convincing enough to depend on and make further conclusion on. That's fine.
For the sake of this example, let's just say that spectroscopy improves and we learn that the spectrum we thought was unique to hydrogen can, in fact, also come from other elements/combination thereof. Or, that the same element does not necessarily emit the same spectrum under every condition (temperature, pressure, relativistic effects, etc.). Then our conclusion - that the sun contains that particular percentage of hydrogen - becomes less reliable. Why? The science got better.
Now ... we could say that spectroscopy is not going to improve in this little corner of it. That's probably right, but the process is the point. Other branches of science have much, much more potential for improvement. And, the possibility of new discoveries and other primary information is always present - and, IMHO, exciting.
And, inevitably and if the past is any indication, today's Historical explanations will change with them.
Quote: rxwinehttp://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2jkgzi/cmv_actual_science_doesnt_start_until_you_have_a/
I'm not sure who the "you" is that this post refers to, or whether that "you" is taking the same position as me. And, I'm not sure why a reddit thread would be offered as "proof" of anything any more than this thread should be. They're just talking, like we are. But just as I read the post and compare it to (one of many) Scientific Method outlines, I see the following:
1. Ask a Question
2. Do Background Research
3. Construct a Hypothesis
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6. Communicate Your Results
Quote: RedditIllustrativeConstructLet's suppose I spend 2 years working hard in the lab on a new project to characterize important factors for the motility of a parasite [2], in order to generate possible targets for drug discovery. [3] I'll describe the kind of thing that might involve.
So suppose I knocked out a panel of genes in my parasite [4] and saw that one of the gene-knockout strains had abnormal/ablated motility when looked at in the microscope. [5] Then I break open some normal parasite cells and isolate the protein [4], after which I check to see if anything else comes out along with it (any other proteins binding to it, for instance). [5] I see from this that it does interact with some other proteins, [5] so I find out the amino acid sequence of each one.
Using the amino acid sequences, [4] I search a database of the parasite's genome to see where the corresponding genes are - I find them there, and I use that knowledge to isolate the DNA of each gene from the parasite. [2] Several of these genes were previously unknown. Not only that, but let's imagine [have we departed from what he did at this point? Did he do any of this or is this just a construction?]I realize one of the genes is a well studied protein already known to have important roles in parasite motility [2]- as a 'scientist', my pulse would be racing at this point. [I would guess so, if it's true.]
So anyway, I put each gene (including the original gene I knocked out) inside a strain of E.coli so that I can make large amounts of protein for each on demand. [4]I do that, then purify the proteins again in large quantities and I determine their crystal structures of each protein in a big interacting complex, [4] from which I learn - just by looking - that my gene that I knocked out seems to play an important role in maintaining the structure of the already 'famous' protein. [5]
Elated, I submit my work to the journal Science and my groundbreaking investigation is lauded as one of the most important within the field for years. But you know what? I discovered several new genes, one of which is important to the parasite's motility (and therefore infectivity), and discovered a key missing link in understanding the function of an already very well studied protein... didn't do any science though, according to you. [Again, not sure what the guy he's talking to believes.]
[The rest is sarcasm, but I'll leave it in here for integrity purposes.]
Neither did Rosalind Franklin, James Watson and Francis Crick do any science when they got the structure of DNA. Nor did the Human Genome Project when they found out so much about our own genetic make up. And actually, the whole disciplines of genomics, proteomics and transcriptomics? Not really science. Oh yeah - theoretical physics? Not science.
I would put it that any definition of science as exclusive as yours doesn't really capture what people mean by 'science', and for that reason should not be entertained.
I don't have any backdrop, but just as I've put in there, it looks like he's done several steps in the Scientific Method. If the confusion comes from thinking experimentation has to look like something in particular, that's on you. I've never said it had to look like something, only that it had to contain certain elements. If we can repeat this and get the same results, yeah, I'd say it's plenty scientific.
The post doesn't go any further, but if I were to construct an example (as it appears our Reddit poster has done) to illustrate the movement into the Historical Method, it might be something like ...
Quote: MyIllustrativeConstructDr. Jones was digging up fossils in Africa and discovered these same genes important to motility (and therefore infectivity) in the fossil record. We also found bones that show a mass extinction of (whatever species) around that same time. Therefore, we conclude that this strain existed then and that it's the cause of the mass extinction we observe in the fossil record.
Certainly, my off-the-cuff construct isn't great. But if I gave it more thought, I could come up with one that illustrates the movement into the Historical Method with less distraction due to content, like our Reddit poster did a good job of. The point is, good Science is only a tool used to explain the past. It's not evidence that the explanation is perfect, or proof that the Science won't change.
Quote: rudeboyoiTwo cops were just shot in the bronx. Responding to a burglary.
Hey! You're clearly interrupting the highjackers to this thread!
Dinosaur means "thunder lizard" as they were originally thought to be ancestors of lizards/reptiles. Now, they're thought to be ancestors of birds. And, the name hasn't changed to "dino-avions" or whatever.
What experiment was done to change that? None. What was done was an improvement in the science, and then the interpretation of dinosaurs' ancestry is also changed ... at least for now, until something else changes. Dinosaurs, in-and-of themselves, didn't change, nor the existence of their fossils. Only the best-guess explanation of the past changed.
Not knowing the Historical Method for what it is is tantamount to clinging to the belief that dinosaurs are ancestors of lizards/reptiles.
