| March for Science23-04-2017 14:23 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39679629
At the demonstration in Washington DC, Dr Jonathan Foley, the executive director of the California Academy of Sciences, said that research was being irrationally questioned, adding that attacks from politicians "amounted to oppression".
They are against politics interfering with science, I am sure that we can all agree on that.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 23-04-2017 15:19 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
spot wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39679629
At the demonstration in Washington DC, Dr Jonathan Foley, the executive director of the California Academy of Sciences, said that research was being irrationally questioned, adding that attacks from politicians "amounted to oppression".
They are against politics interfering with science...
Oil, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un think tanks (the same as non-think tanks) now believe they have power to overwhelm actual science results with denial, lies, & whining PR propaganda poop. |
| 23-04-2017 18:04 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
spot wrote:
They are against politics interfering with science, I am sure that we can all agree on that.
Does the word "interfering" include funding? Then yes, I agree.
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 23-04-2017 19:17 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed: Does the word "interfering" include funding? Then yes, I agree.
"Don'T rump" is way ahead of you. Science in the U.S. is dying a quick death.... sometimes replaced by AGW denier liar whiner "sigh-ants"...... oh, that's what re-pubic-lick-uns mean by "repeal & replace".... better defined as "repeal & erase". |
| 23-04-2017 20:29 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21588) |
spot wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39679629
At the demonstration in Washington DC, Dr Jonathan Foley, the executive director of the California Academy of Sciences, said that research was being irrationally questioned, adding that attacks from politicians "amounted to oppression".
They are against politics interfering with science, I am sure that we can all agree on that.
So they march to have the government interfere with science. Right.
Get the government out of science funding. That IS interference with science.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 23-04-2017 20:30 |
|
| 23-04-2017 21:11 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
spot wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39679629
At the demonstration in Washington DC,
What did they actually demonstrate?
Dr Jonathan Foley said that research was being irrationally questioned
If you pay a contractor to work on your house, car, whatever, do you think maybe you should ask some questions?
adding that attacks from politicians "amounted to oppression".
Tell that to the African slaves of the 1800s. Mr. Foley, you are a snot nosed puke.
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 23-04-2017 21:39 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Right you seem angry that people have different opinions then you
However In a democracy people have the right to protest. |
| 23-04-2017 21:47 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
I have no problem with anyone's opinion of any thing. Suit yourself. I honestly don't care.
I don't wish to pay for your opinion.
Side note....We do not have a democracy. We have a republic. A representative republic to be exact. MOST of our politicians need to learn that. |
| 24-04-2017 03:35 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
spot wrote:
Right you seem angry that people have different opinions then you
However In a democracy people have the right to protest.
They have a right to protest. They have the right to propose an oxymoron too.
How do you protest government interference in science by proposing government interference in science???
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 24-04-2017 05:29 |
Frescomexico★★☆☆☆
(179) |
I have trouble featuring any funder of scientific research, be it government or private, not tending to influence the direction of the research. If the march is directed towards a hands off by funders, I think it is unrealistic. |
| 24-04-2017 08:02 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Frescomexico wrote:
I have trouble featuring any funder of scientific research, be it government or private, not tending to influence the direction of the research. If the march is directed towards a hands off by funders, I think it is unrealistic.
It is also wrong. The march is intended to restore government funding of science.
Which also means government interference of science.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 24-04-2017 11:06 |
Frescomexico★★☆☆☆
(179) |
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
I have trouble featuring any funder of scientific research, be it government or private, not tending to influence the direction of the research. If the march is directed towards a hands off by funders, I think it is unrealistic.
It is also wrong. The march is intended to restore government funding of science.
Which also means government interference of science.
The march may also be intended to restore funding, but Dr. Foley said it was to protest interference with research. |
| 24-04-2017 12:59 |
Glitch☆☆☆☆☆
(22) |
spot wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39679629
At the demonstration in Washington DC, Dr Jonathan Foley, the executive director of the California Academy of Sciences, said that research was being irrationally questioned, adding that attacks from politicians "amounted to oppression".
They are against politics interfering with science, I am sure that we can all agree on that. Correction: They are against anyone with a different opinion than theirs being funded. They only want their politically-based pseudo-science opinions funded. That is why they are marching. |
| 24-04-2017 17:28 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
"AGW denier liar whiner glitch" guffed: Correction: They are against anyone with a different opinion than theirs being funded.
"AGW denier liar whiner guffer glitch" is back from a long vacation.
"AGW denier liar whiner guffer glitch" is upset because it has no science chemistry astronomy physics algebra or pre-calc in an unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, & can't get no funding.
Edited on 24-04-2017 17:34 |
| 24-04-2017 18:59 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Glitch wrote:
spot wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39679629
At the demonstration in Washington DC, Dr Jonathan Foley, the executive director of the California Academy of Sciences, said that research was being irrationally questioned, adding that attacks from politicians "amounted to oppression".
They are against politics interfering with science, I am sure that we can all agree on that. Correction: They are against anyone with a different opinion than theirs being funded. They only want their politically-based pseudo-science opinions funded. That is why they are marching.
What would those pseudo-science opinions be?
Vaccinations? Evolution? something else?
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
|
| 24-04-2017 19:06 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39679629
At the demonstration in Washington DC, Dr Jonathan Foley, the executive director of the California Academy of Sciences, said that research was being irrationally questioned, adding that attacks from politicians "amounted to oppression".
They are against politics interfering with science, I am sure that we can all agree on that.
So they march to have the government interfere with science. Right.
Get the government out of science funding. That IS interference with science.
Let's discuss this in detail - the cost of advanced research is so high that it is almost impossible to get it any other way than by a government science grant or a military grant.
OK, you and I have to pay for this work.
But what happens when politicians use it to try to obtain and retain further political and financial power? You don't think that these politicians are doing this for free do you?
So the very science we hope to have to give us unbiased opinions is misrepresented to give us some of the most biased information that this Earth has ever seen.
At this point there is NO OTHER choice but to cut the funding completely. If scientists need grants let them find something that can make some commercial entity a profit.
Screw them and the white horse they rode in on promising to save you and I from ignorance. |
| 24-04-2017 21:20 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39679629
At the demonstration in Washington DC, Dr Jonathan Foley, the executive director of the California Academy of Sciences, said that research was being irrationally questioned, adding that attacks from politicians "amounted to oppression".
They are against politics interfering with science, I am sure that we can all agree on that.
So they march to have the government interfere with science. Right.
Get the government out of science funding. That IS interference with science.
Let's discuss this in detail - the cost of advanced research is so high that it is almost impossible to get it any other way than by a government science grant or a military grant.
OK, you and I have to pay for this work.
But what happens when politicians use it to try to obtain and retain further political and financial power? You don't think that these politicians are doing this for free do you?
So the very science we hope to have to give us unbiased opinions is misrepresented to give us some of the most biased information that this Earth has ever seen.
At this point there is NO OTHER choice but to cut the funding completely. If scientists need grants let them find something that can make some commercial entity a profit.
Screw them and the white horse they rode in on promising to save you and I from ignorance.
Fortunately, science isn't research. It isn't studies. It isn't data. It isn't credentials. It isn't universities. It isn't government agencies. It does not use consensus. It does not depend on peer reviews to function. It isn't even people at all.
Science is just the falsifiable theories themselves. Anyone and I do mean ANYONE can create a theory of science. All they have to do is check it for internal and external inconsistencies, make sure the theory is falsifiable, and test the null hypothesis to try to break the theory. That null hypothesis comes from the model of the theory itself.
If it survives, it's science, at least until some conflicting data or test destroys the theory.
If you want the theory to predict, you formalize it into a closed system, such as mathematics. Only closed systems have the power of prediction.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 24-04-2017 21:29 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39679629
At the demonstration in Washington DC, Dr Jonathan Foley, the executive director of the California Academy of Sciences, said that research was being irrationally questioned, adding that attacks from politicians "amounted to oppression".
They are against politics interfering with science, I am sure that we can all agree on that.
So they march to have the government interfere with science. Right.
Get the government out of science funding. That IS interference with science.
Let's discuss this in detail - the cost of advanced research is so high that it is almost impossible to get it any other way than by a government science grant or a military grant.
OK, you and I have to pay for this work.
But what happens when politicians use it to try to obtain and retain further political and financial power? You don't think that these politicians are doing this for free do you?
So the very science we hope to have to give us unbiased opinions is misrepresented to give us some of the most biased information that this Earth has ever seen.
At this point there is NO OTHER choice but to cut the funding completely. If scientists need grants let them find something that can make some commercial entity a profit.
Screw them and the white horse they rode in on promising to save you and I from ignorance.
Fortunately, science isn't research. It isn't studies. It isn't data. It isn't credentials. It isn't universities. It isn't government agencies. It does not use consensus. It does not depend on peer reviews to function. It isn't even people at all.
Science is just the falsifiable theories themselves. Anyone and I do mean ANYONE can create a theory of science. All they have to do is check it for internal and external inconsistencies, make sure the theory is falsifiable, and test the null hypothesis to try to break the theory. That null hypothesis comes from the model of the theory itself.
If it survives, it's science, at least until some conflicting data or test destroys the theory.
If you want the theory to predict, you formalize it into a closed system, such as mathematics. Only closed systems have the power of prediction.
So dinosaurs, that is digging stuff up first then making the theory, not sitting at home and thinking.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 24-04-2017 22:55 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39679629
At the demonstration in Washington DC, Dr Jonathan Foley, the executive director of the California Academy of Sciences, said that research was being irrationally questioned, adding that attacks from politicians "amounted to oppression".
They are against politics interfering with science, I am sure that we can all agree on that.
So they march to have the government interfere with science. Right.
Get the government out of science funding. That IS interference with science.
Let's discuss this in detail - the cost of advanced research is so high that it is almost impossible to get it any other way than by a government science grant or a military grant.
OK, you and I have to pay for this work.
But what happens when politicians use it to try to obtain and retain further political and financial power? You don't think that these politicians are doing this for free do you?
So the very science we hope to have to give us unbiased opinions is misrepresented to give us some of the most biased information that this Earth has ever seen.
At this point there is NO OTHER choice but to cut the funding completely. If scientists need grants let them find something that can make some commercial entity a profit.
Screw them and the white horse they rode in on promising to save you and I from ignorance.
Fortunately, science isn't research. It isn't studies. It isn't data. It isn't credentials. It isn't universities. It isn't government agencies. It does not use consensus. It does not depend on peer reviews to function. It isn't even people at all.
Science is just the falsifiable theories themselves. Anyone and I do mean ANYONE can create a theory of science. All they have to do is check it for internal and external inconsistencies, make sure the theory is falsifiable, and test the null hypothesis to try to break the theory. That null hypothesis comes from the model of the theory itself.
If it survives, it's science, at least until some conflicting data or test destroys the theory.
If you want the theory to predict, you formalize it into a closed system, such as mathematics. Only closed systems have the power of prediction.
Sorry but wild ass guesses aren't science. Science is the actual proven (to the highest possible point) hypothesis, theory and eventually to face.
As hypothesis reduce to smaller and smaller points of interest the requirements to prove them grows more and more expensive.
Great, but there is a growing body of science that simply does not even approach anything of public interest. Why should we pay for it? |
| 24-04-2017 22:56 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
spot wrote: So dinosaurs, that is digging stuff up first then making the theory, not sitting at home and thinking.
Can you explain why you can't even get that simple concept straight without getting it completely backwards? |
| 24-04-2017 23:23 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39679629
At the demonstration in Washington DC, Dr Jonathan Foley, the executive director of the California Academy of Sciences, said that research was being irrationally questioned, adding that attacks from politicians "amounted to oppression".
They are against politics interfering with science, I am sure that we can all agree on that.
So they march to have the government interfere with science. Right.
Get the government out of science funding. That IS interference with science.
Let's discuss this in detail - the cost of advanced research is so high that it is almost impossible to get it any other way than by a government science grant or a military grant.
OK, you and I have to pay for this work.
But what happens when politicians use it to try to obtain and retain further political and financial power? You don't think that these politicians are doing this for free do you?
So the very science we hope to have to give us unbiased opinions is misrepresented to give us some of the most biased information that this Earth has ever seen.
At this point there is NO OTHER choice but to cut the funding completely. If scientists need grants let them find something that can make some commercial entity a profit.
Screw them and the white horse they rode in on promising to save you and I from ignorance.
Fortunately, science isn't research. It isn't studies. It isn't data. It isn't credentials. It isn't universities. It isn't government agencies. It does not use consensus. It does not depend on peer reviews to function. It isn't even people at all.
Science is just the falsifiable theories themselves. Anyone and I do mean ANYONE can create a theory of science. All they have to do is check it for internal and external inconsistencies, make sure the theory is falsifiable, and test the null hypothesis to try to break the theory. That null hypothesis comes from the model of the theory itself.
If it survives, it's science, at least until some conflicting data or test destroys the theory.
If you want the theory to predict, you formalize it into a closed system, such as mathematics. Only closed systems have the power of prediction.
Sorry but wild ass guesses aren't science.
True. They are the point all theories, including scientific ones begin, however. All theories start out as circular arguments. What makes a theory a scientific theory are the test that I've described.
The theory must be internally consistent. No theory may be based on a logical fallacy, whether a scientific theory or not.
The theory must be externally consistent. It cannot conflict with other theories of science. If a new theory does, it must justify the destruction of the conflicting theory. Only scientific theories have this requirement.
The theory must be falsifiable. The test for the null hypothesis must be available, practical to conduct, and produce a specific result. The null hypothesis comes from the model of the theory itself. Only scientific theories have this requirement.
It is these test that separate the wild-ass guesses from science.
Wake wrote:
Science is the actual proven (to the highest possible point) hypothesis, theory and eventually to face. Science has no proofs. Only closed systems have proofs. Science is an open system. A theory of science will remain a theory until its destruction.
Supporting evidence is not used in science. Only conflicting evidence is used. No amount of supporting evidence can justify, bless, sanctify, or otherwise legitimize a theory. Literally mountains of supporting evidence mean nothing in the face of a single piece of conflicting evidence.
Wake wrote:
As hypothesis reduce to smaller and smaller points of interest the requirements to prove them grows more and more expensive. This is a generality that is simply not true. Conflicting evidence can come from anywhere, including the cheapest of experiments, or even no experiment at all!
Wake wrote:
Great, but there is a growing body of science that simply does not even approach anything of public interest. Why should we pay for it?
Do we pay for it? The government prints so much money these days I'm surprised it still has any value.
I am not concerned about who pays for it. I am concerned about so much of science funded from a single source...a politically motivated source at that.
Government funding of science is government interference in science.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 24-04-2017 23:26 |
| 25-04-2017 04:17 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14389) |
spot wrote:They are against politics interfering with science, I am sure that we can all agree on that.
You push for "Climate" legislation and for integration of the Global Warming church and State, ... while science gets butchered.
* . H . * . Y . * . P . * . O . * . C . * . R . * . I . * . T . * . E . *
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 25-04-2017 19:20 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39679629
At the demonstration in Washington DC, Dr Jonathan Foley, the executive director of the California Academy of Sciences, said that research was being irrationally questioned, adding that attacks from politicians "amounted to oppression".
They are against politics interfering with science, I am sure that we can all agree on that.
So they march to have the government interfere with science. Right.
Get the government out of science funding. That IS interference with science.
Let's discuss this in detail - the cost of advanced research is so high that it is almost impossible to get it any other way than by a government science grant or a military grant.
OK, you and I have to pay for this work.
But what happens when politicians use it to try to obtain and retain further political and financial power? You don't think that these politicians are doing this for free do you?
So the very science we hope to have to give us unbiased opinions is misrepresented to give us some of the most biased information that this Earth has ever seen.
At this point there is NO OTHER choice but to cut the funding completely. If scientists need grants let them find something that can make some commercial entity a profit.
Screw them and the white horse they rode in on promising to save you and I from ignorance.
Fortunately, science isn't research. It isn't studies. It isn't data. It isn't credentials. It isn't universities. It isn't government agencies. It does not use consensus. It does not depend on peer reviews to function. It isn't even people at all.
Science is just the falsifiable theories themselves. Anyone and I do mean ANYONE can create a theory of science. All they have to do is check it for internal and external inconsistencies, make sure the theory is falsifiable, and test the null hypothesis to try to break the theory. That null hypothesis comes from the model of the theory itself.
If it survives, it's science, at least until some conflicting data or test destroys the theory.
If you want the theory to predict, you formalize it into a closed system, such as mathematics. Only closed systems have the power of prediction.
Sorry but wild ass guesses aren't science.
True. They are the point all theories, including scientific ones begin, however. All theories start out as circular arguments. What makes a theory a scientific theory are the test that I've described.
The theory must be internally consistent. No theory may be based on a logical fallacy, whether a scientific theory or not.
The theory must be externally consistent. It cannot conflict with other theories of science. If a new theory does, it must justify the destruction of the conflicting theory. Only scientific theories have this requirement.
The theory must be falsifiable. The test for the null hypothesis must be available, practical to conduct, and produce a specific result. The null hypothesis comes from the model of the theory itself. Only scientific theories have this requirement.
It is these test that separate the wild-ass guesses from science.
Wake wrote:
Science is the actual proven (to the highest possible point) hypothesis, theory and eventually to face. Science has no proofs. Only closed systems have proofs. Science is an open system. A theory of science will remain a theory until its destruction.
Supporting evidence is not used in science. Only conflicting evidence is used. No amount of supporting evidence can justify, bless, sanctify, or otherwise legitimize a theory. Literally mountains of supporting evidence mean nothing in the face of a single piece of conflicting evidence.
Wake wrote:
As hypothesis reduce to smaller and smaller points of interest the requirements to prove them grows more and more expensive. This is a generality that is simply not true. Conflicting evidence can come from anywhere, including the cheapest of experiments, or even no experiment at all!
Wake wrote:
Great, but there is a growing body of science that simply does not even approach anything of public interest. Why should we pay for it?
Do we pay for it? The government prints so much money these days I'm surprised it still has any value.
I am not concerned about who pays for it. I am concerned about so much of science funded from a single source...a politically motivated source at that.
Government funding of science is government interference in science.
Science in fact is so much wild ass guessing that it's rediculous. We cannot even tell some of the simplest components of quantum theory. We recently heard of the timely death of "the woman who discovered dark matter" and yet we haven't the slightest proof that there is any such thing after decades of looking. In fact we can't even guarantee that gravity is a universal factor and that our gravity constants are the same everywhere in the universe.
I watched a youtube video of some jerk Democrat Congressman insulting a real scientist because he has said that he could argue more successfully on creation than science could argue on evolution of the universe.
That jackass liberal Congressman didn't the slightest clue that the most basic of science is completely unexplainable.
So signs being shown in protest marches saying "We believe in the religion of Science" are indeed right - science is FAR more unknown than arguing that Creation occurred. |
| 25-04-2017 19:44 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39679629
At the demonstration in Washington DC, Dr Jonathan Foley, the executive director of the California Academy of Sciences, said that research was being irrationally questioned, adding that attacks from politicians "amounted to oppression".
They are against politics interfering with science, I am sure that we can all agree on that.
So they march to have the government interfere with science. Right.
Get the government out of science funding. That IS interference with science.
Let's discuss this in detail - the cost of advanced research is so high that it is almost impossible to get it any other way than by a government science grant or a military grant.
OK, you and I have to pay for this work.
But what happens when politicians use it to try to obtain and retain further political and financial power? You don't think that these politicians are doing this for free do you?
So the very science we hope to have to give us unbiased opinions is misrepresented to give us some of the most biased information that this Earth has ever seen.
At this point there is NO OTHER choice but to cut the funding completely. If scientists need grants let them find something that can make some commercial entity a profit.
Screw them and the white horse they rode in on promising to save you and I from ignorance.
Fortunately, science isn't research. It isn't studies. It isn't data. It isn't credentials. It isn't universities. It isn't government agencies. It does not use consensus. It does not depend on peer reviews to function. It isn't even people at all.
Science is just the falsifiable theories themselves. Anyone and I do mean ANYONE can create a theory of science. All they have to do is check it for internal and external inconsistencies, make sure the theory is falsifiable, and test the null hypothesis to try to break the theory. That null hypothesis comes from the model of the theory itself.
If it survives, it's science, at least until some conflicting data or test destroys the theory.
If you want the theory to predict, you formalize it into a closed system, such as mathematics. Only closed systems have the power of prediction.
Sorry but wild ass guesses aren't science.
True. They are the point all theories, including scientific ones begin, however. All theories start out as circular arguments. What makes a theory a scientific theory are the test that I've described.
The theory must be internally consistent. No theory may be based on a logical fallacy, whether a scientific theory or not.
The theory must be externally consistent. It cannot conflict with other theories of science. If a new theory does, it must justify the destruction of the conflicting theory. Only scientific theories have this requirement.
The theory must be falsifiable. The test for the null hypothesis must be available, practical to conduct, and produce a specific result. The null hypothesis comes from the model of the theory itself. Only scientific theories have this requirement.
It is these test that separate the wild-ass guesses from science.
Wake wrote:
Science is the actual proven (to the highest possible point) hypothesis, theory and eventually to face. Science has no proofs. Only closed systems have proofs. Science is an open system. A theory of science will remain a theory until its destruction.
Supporting evidence is not used in science. Only conflicting evidence is used. No amount of supporting evidence can justify, bless, sanctify, or otherwise legitimize a theory. Literally mountains of supporting evidence mean nothing in the face of a single piece of conflicting evidence.
Wake wrote:
As hypothesis reduce to smaller and smaller points of interest the requirements to prove them grows more and more expensive. This is a generality that is simply not true. Conflicting evidence can come from anywhere, including the cheapest of experiments, or even no experiment at all!
Wake wrote:
Great, but there is a growing body of science that simply does not even approach anything of public interest. Why should we pay for it?
Do we pay for it? The government prints so much money these days I'm surprised it still has any value.
I am not concerned about who pays for it. I am concerned about so much of science funded from a single source...a politically motivated source at that.
Government funding of science is government interference in science.
Science in fact is so much wild ass guessing that it's rediculous. We cannot even tell some of the simplest components of quantum theory. We recently heard of the timely death of "the woman who discovered dark matter" and yet we haven't the slightest proof that there is any such thing after decades of looking. In fact we can't even guarantee that gravity is a universal factor and that our gravity constants are the same everywhere in the universe.
I watched a youtube video of some jerk Democrat Congressman insulting a real scientist because he has said that he could argue more successfully on creation than science could argue on evolution of the universe.
That jackass liberal Congressman didn't the slightest clue that the most basic of science is completely unexplainable.
So signs being shown in protest marches saying "We believe in the religion of Science" are indeed right - science is FAR more unknown than arguing that Creation occurred.
Neither creation theory nor evolution theory not abiogenesis theory are science.
None of these theories are falsifiable. You have to go back to actually look at what happened.
What you saw was a religious argument, not a science argument.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 25-04-2017 19:45 |
| 25-04-2017 19:46 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Into the Night wrote:
Neither creation theory nor evolution theory not abiogenesis theory are science.
None of these theories are falsifiable. You have to go back to actually look at what happened.
How do you do that?
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 25-04-2017 21:22 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39679629
At the demonstration in Washington DC, Dr Jonathan Foley, the executive director of the California Academy of Sciences, said that research was being irrationally questioned, adding that attacks from politicians "amounted to oppression".
They are against politics interfering with science, I am sure that we can all agree on that.
So they march to have the government interfere with science. Right.
Get the government out of science funding. That IS interference with science.
Let's discuss this in detail - the cost of advanced research is so high that it is almost impossible to get it any other way than by a government science grant or a military grant.
OK, you and I have to pay for this work.
But what happens when politicians use it to try to obtain and retain further political and financial power? You don't think that these politicians are doing this for free do you?
So the very science we hope to have to give us unbiased opinions is misrepresented to give us some of the most biased information that this Earth has ever seen.
At this point there is NO OTHER choice but to cut the funding completely. If scientists need grants let them find something that can make some commercial entity a profit.
Screw them and the white horse they rode in on promising to save you and I from ignorance.
Fortunately, science isn't research. It isn't studies. It isn't data. It isn't credentials. It isn't universities. It isn't government agencies. It does not use consensus. It does not depend on peer reviews to function. It isn't even people at all.
Science is just the falsifiable theories themselves. Anyone and I do mean ANYONE can create a theory of science. All they have to do is check it for internal and external inconsistencies, make sure the theory is falsifiable, and test the null hypothesis to try to break the theory. That null hypothesis comes from the model of the theory itself.
If it survives, it's science, at least until some conflicting data or test destroys the theory.
If you want the theory to predict, you formalize it into a closed system, such as mathematics. Only closed systems have the power of prediction.
Sorry but wild ass guesses aren't science.
True. They are the point all theories, including scientific ones begin, however. All theories start out as circular arguments. What makes a theory a scientific theory are the test that I've described.
The theory must be internally consistent. No theory may be based on a logical fallacy, whether a scientific theory or not.
The theory must be externally consistent. It cannot conflict with other theories of science. If a new theory does, it must justify the destruction of the conflicting theory. Only scientific theories have this requirement.
The theory must be falsifiable. The test for the null hypothesis must be available, practical to conduct, and produce a specific result. The null hypothesis comes from the model of the theory itself. Only scientific theories have this requirement.
It is these test that separate the wild-ass guesses from science.
Wake wrote:
Science is the actual proven (to the highest possible point) hypothesis, theory and eventually to face. Science has no proofs. Only closed systems have proofs. Science is an open system. A theory of science will remain a theory until its destruction.
Supporting evidence is not used in science. Only conflicting evidence is used. No amount of supporting evidence can justify, bless, sanctify, or otherwise legitimize a theory. Literally mountains of supporting evidence mean nothing in the face of a single piece of conflicting evidence.
Wake wrote:
As hypothesis reduce to smaller and smaller points of interest the requirements to prove them grows more and more expensive. This is a generality that is simply not true. Conflicting evidence can come from anywhere, including the cheapest of experiments, or even no experiment at all!
Wake wrote:
Great, but there is a growing body of science that simply does not even approach anything of public interest. Why should we pay for it?
Do we pay for it? The government prints so much money these days I'm surprised it still has any value.
I am not concerned about who pays for it. I am concerned about so much of science funded from a single source...a politically motivated source at that.
Government funding of science is government interference in science.
Science in fact is so much wild ass guessing that it's rediculous. We cannot even tell some of the simplest components of quantum theory. We recently heard of the timely death of "the woman who discovered dark matter" and yet we haven't the slightest proof that there is any such thing after decades of looking. In fact we can't even guarantee that gravity is a universal factor and that our gravity constants are the same everywhere in the universe.
I watched a youtube video of some jerk Democrat Congressman insulting a real scientist because he has said that he could argue more successfully on creation than science could argue on evolution of the universe.
That jackass liberal Congressman didn't the slightest clue that the most basic of science is completely unexplainable.
So signs being shown in protest marches saying "We believe in the religion of Science" are indeed right - science is FAR more unknown than arguing that Creation occurred.
Neither creation theory nor evolution theory not abiogenesis theory are science.
None of these theories are falsifiable. You have to go back to actually look at what happened.
What you saw was a religious argument, not a science argument.
Are you suggesting there is ANY science in abiogenesis theory? There isn't even so much as a clue of how it could have occurred. |