Climate change

[GardenerGal]

Nope, it's not conjecture, Royd. Theory, yes -- but I suspect that your definition of "theory" is the one used by so many outside of science. Here is a link to a very good site defining "hypothesis," "theory" and "law" as scientists and mathematicians use those terms:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Science is not a religion, it is a METHOD of extracting information/data through methodical processes that -- if used in its pure objective form will eliminate the impossible. What is left, how improbable it may seem, is most very likely gonna be the truth. Conan Doyle said something along those lines.

 

[Royd]

Nope, it's not conjecture, Royd. Theory, yes -- but I suspect that your definition of "theory" is the one used by so many outside of science. Here is a link to a very good site defining "hypothesis," "theory" and "law" as scientists and mathematicians use those terms:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Science is not a religion, it is a METHOD of extracting information/data through methodical processes that -- if used in its pure objective form will eliminate the impossible. What is left, how improbable it may seem, is most very likely gonna be the truth. Conan Doyle said something along those lines.

Sadly, when you put today's science and any religion side by side, there are too many markers which can tag science as a religion..How many adherents to the AGW theory; not actual scientists, had believed what they were told, even after much of the "proof" had been shown to be phony or intentionally altered or obscured?
How many "scientists" decided ahead of time what the desired end of the research should be and excluded an info which did not achieve the desired end?

How many billions of dollars have been spent searching for other life in outer space....Noone can convince me that it's just about taking fantastic pictures of wild looking galaxies.

We can't win a war on poverty, yet we are determined to prove that life could, would, and should exist on Mars.

I remember several scandals back in the 60's when the argument between creation and evolution started to heat up. Some fossilized pig's tooth became a big deal.

 

[GardenerGal]

Royd, People, being subjective creatures, definitely do twist "science" to suit their personal agendas. However, there is "Good Science" (I should trademark that!) -- the many, many scientists who truly aim to take data objectively and parse out the truth. If it weren't for them, we would not have the HUGE advances in medicine, technology, physics, understanding of the solar system, chemistry and mathematics that we've seen over the millennia. For every excellent scientist, though, there is a mediocre on and a crappy one. The key is to look at the results of the excellent and good scientists -- and find that their data and the theories they extrapolate from them, really do point to what is most probably the answer. Again, we could not be where we are today, without them.

If we had listened to the Church, way back in the day, we'd still think that the sun orbits around the Earth, despite all of the SCIENTIFIC, MATHEMATICAL THEORY to the contrary.

 

[Royd]

Royd, People, being subjective creatures, definitely do twist "science" to suit their personal agendas. However, there is "Good Science" (I should trademark that!) -- the many, many scientists who truly aim to take data objectively and parse out the truth. If it weren't for them, we would not have the HUGE advances in medicine, technology, physics, understanding of the solar system, chemistry and mathematics that we've seen over the millennia. For every excellent scientist, though, there is a mediocre on and a crappy one. The key is to look at the results of the excellent and good scientists -- and find that their data and the theories they extrapolate from them, really do point to what is most probably the answer. Again, we could not be where we are today, without them.

If we had listened to the Church, way back in the day, we'd still think that the sun orbits around the Earth, despite all of the SCIENTIFIC, MATHEMATICAL THEORY to the contrary.

I agree that there are some true scientists left, but the biggest agenda by scientists in the last 2 or 3 decades turned out to be full of fraud and deciept only for the purpose of free govt. funding.
The problem is with society in general. Lying, fraud and theft has become so commonplace to achieve a desired end, whether in school, business, politics, journalism or science that someone one who stands up and says,"Just wait a minute, here." becomes ostrasized from the status quo....How much of today's scientific peer review is nothing more than a circular backslap?
The across the board defense of science because that's your job is no different than Baptists defending their doctrine of Immersion Baptism or Catholics defending their use of religious icons or their doctrine of Purgatory.

 

[RHRanch]

I agree that there are some true scientists left, but the biggest agenda by scientists in the last 2 or 3 decades turned out to be full of fraud and deciept only for the purpose of free govt. funding.
The problem is with society in general. Lying, fraud and theft has become so commonplace to achieve a desired end, whether in school, business, politics, journalism or science that someone one who stands up and says,"Just wait a minute, here." becomes ostrasized from the status quo....How much of today's scientific peer review is nothing more than a circular backslap?
The across the board defense of science because that's your job is no different than Baptists defending their doctrine of Immersion Baptism or Catholics defending their use of religious icons or their doctrine of Purgatory.

Why on earth should Catholics or Baptists have to defend their beliefs or practices? I don't get it.

 

[chickened]

I think what science is looking for is truth. Truth is not an extrapolation of removing doubt it is a core beginning of something. Science is only as truthful as the completion of it's last experiment. As an occupation it is no more truthful than a weatherman. Truth has never resided in science and never will. Science can only disprove the unknown.

 

[GardenerGal]

I think what science is looking for is truth. Truth is not an extrapolation of removing doubt it is a core beginning of something. Science is only as truthful as the completion of it's last experiment. As an occupation it is no more truthful than a weatherman. Truth has never resided in science and never will. Science can only disprove the unknown.

Great post, chickened.
I'd ammend it only to say that "Science can only disprove the un-true."

Scientists are human; humans are subjective -- no one can be 100% objective. Science is, in and of itself, 100% objective. Again, it is a method. The facts don't lie. But people do, and they twist facts, or commit the "sin of omission" in order to achieve their personal agendas. There's the old saying "Statistics don't lie, but statisticians do."

This does not, however, mean that we can discard facts and ignore them. The good scientists take these facts and ask more questions, keeping their objectivity in and their egos out of the process.

 

[Royd]

Why on earth should Catholics or Baptists have to defend their beliefs or practices? I don't get it.

Simply because they are practices and beliefs based on faith or an interpretation of Scripture,and not defending is tantamount to being a heretic....The same way the the scientific community defended, as a whole,{few exceptions} the fraudulent work of East Anglica, NOAA and others.

Plus, GardenerGal made the statement that science is not religion and I argue that you could have fooled me, the way they hung to and defended the fraud of AGW.

 

[Royd]

Great post, chickened.
I'd ammend it only to say that "Science can only disprove the un-true."

Scientists are human; humans are subjective -- no one can be 100% objective. Science is, in and of itself, 100% objective. Again, it is a method. The facts don't lie. But people do, and they twist facts, or commit the "sin of omission" in order to achieve their personal agendas. There's the old saying "Statistics don't lie, but statisticians do."

This does not, however, mean that we can discard facts and ignore them. The good scientists take these facts and ask more questions, keeping their objectivity in and their egos out of the process.

I agree with you on this..Science, in and of itself, must be placed separate of scientists...Especially in today's world where political agendas, big money and end results, regardless of method,are tied intrinsically together......The days of the basement inventor, doing it all on his own, until he finds the truth, are over.

It's no different with big pharma....Drugs are pushed out of the lab, onto the market way too fast...Touted as the newest, best cure all, and 5 yrs. later, there's a billion dollar class action lawsuit....What they turned out was a chemical poison.not a panacea.

 

[GardenerGal]

Simply because they are practices and beliefs based on faith or an interpretation of Scripture,and not defending is tantamount to being a heretic....The same way the the scientific community defended, as a whole,{few exceptions} the fraudulent work of East Anglica, NOAA and others.

Plus, GardenerGal made the statement that science is not religion and I argue that you could have fooled me, the way they hung to and defended the fraud of AGW.

People are free to "worship" anything they choose. If you want to worship, for example, shoemaking, that is your choice. The principles and practices of cobbling can become your daily discipline and moving meditation. That does not make it a religion.

Scientific has no "god equivalent," only rules of engagement that make something scientific- or not-scientific method.

What is "AGW"? And who are "they"?