Science vs. Non-Science

[Hearsay]

[ATTACH]63440[/ATTACH]

 

Why do we embrace Science sometimes yet disregard it other times?

 

Because there are not science-politicos with paid agendas working on Eclipse studies.

 

The same argument also works in reverse, politically. Why in 1973 was the left cocksure a fetus was not a life but now that science has clearly established that it is the argument has shifted away from life and over to viability?

 

Most science is merely politics and money wearing a lab coat and using and engineers pencil.

[Lawnboy13]

The Climate change gibberish is nothing more than a money-grab......and you will NOT convince me otherwise.

[WhoozYoDaddy]

Predicting the eclipse is more mathematics, than science. The speed and trajectory of the objects determine the date and time of an eclipse.

[B-Ball-fan]

I wonder if being neutral on the issue, and admitting to myself no personal concrete knowledge one way or another regarding it would be a viable enough approach to the topic?

 

For me, and considering what I know with certainty, I presently can't imagine any other feasible choice, nor could I find myself commenting in such a way to give the impression that I was certain.

 

I often wonder that If those who study such things are not in complete agreement, how do those who don't personally dabble in such scientific study determine their conclusions with such adamant certainty?

 

Sorta reminds me of the line in the 1989 song "The Violence of Truth" by the Brit band The The...

 

"Why is it that anything on this earth we do not understand

We are pushed onto our knees to worship or to damn?"

[CincySportsFan]

It is a logical fallacy to assume that if SOME scientists can predict SOME things accurately that it means ALL scientists can predict EVERYTHING accurately. If that was the case, you would never need a second opinion from a doctor (because the first diagnosis would always be correct), you'd never get caught in the rain without an umbrella (because the weatherman would always be right about not only about IF it would rain, but also WHEN it would rain). As we know, neither instance is an absolute.

 

As to why we "trust" some scientists versus others, I guess it comes down to whether or not there's a perception of outside influence occuring. There really wasn't anything to gain by predicting the eclipse. Yeah, I guess you could buy stock in the company that made the glasses. But, other than that, I don't see any benefit to that prediction. There wasn't policy that was going to change because of it.

[Bluegrasscard]

Can 'scientists' but driven by conformity and thus some science be the result of simple group think?

 

[All Tell]

For those that feel the climate change scientific advocates have basically produced Holy Writ that shouldn't be questioned I have 2 questions:

 

1. Can you explain the need to change language from global warming to climate change?

2. How the same scientific bodies that were predicting another ice age in the 70's be so wrong then, but irrefutably accurate now?

[WhoozYoDaddy]

I am befuddled by the claims of the global warming advocates that anytime we have an unusually extreme weather scenario, be it heat, rain, drought, winds, snowfall, tropical storms etc...that they can all be traced to man made global warming. But in many cases, when we have weather related records eclipsed, the old record was set far back in time, when supposedly, man caused warming was not a factor. Leaves me scratching my head.

[B-Ball-fan]

For those that feel the climate change scientific advocates have basically produced Holy Writ that shouldn't be questioned I have 2 questions:

 

1. Can you explain the need to change language from global warming to climate change?

2. How the same scientific bodies that were predicting another ice age in the 70's be so wrong then, but irrefutably accurate now?

 

For everyone no matter what you strongly believe, considering that it's a good bet that you have no way of knowing with any certainty, are you willing to give each point, for, and against, a fair analysis, or will you find yourself either weighing in heavy for, or against?

 

And considering that you really don't know, what might you think motivates the way you tend to strongly lean, and can you honestly feel secure in this strong leaning knowing that you really have no way of knowing for sure?

[B-Ball-fan]

Can 'scientists' but driven by conformity and thus some science be the result of simple group think?

 

 

In this interesting experiment, (where I personally think that I've at times been a product of the same type of circumstances making me second guess myself), they reported that the subjects went along with the group 37% of the time... and though not mentioned, that would also mean that the subjects deviated from the group with the correct answers 63% of the time.

 

I suppose that the percentage results can be more trusted especially if the experiment is performed many times rather than not, but what the study did find seemed quite plausible and logical regardless of what the actual numbers came out to be.

 

Personally, I have been in the company of 3 general scenarios...

 

1. Everyone thought that climate change was ridiculous.

2. Everyone thought that climate change was real.

3. A mixed bag, both for and against the theory.

 

In each, I pretty much kept quiet offering no strong view other than a shrug of the shoulders and an "I don't know", and watched in amazement how not only did people from either side voice theirs, but with it they tended to tear down the opposing views as being a product of obstinate stupidity.

 

Personally, I've been amazed how either side could so strongly cut down the other when neither knew for sure, though still weighing in as if they did.

 

Other than not knowing for sure, I personally stay neutral because I've heard points from both sides that sound reasonable enough to consider, yet never conclusive enough to feel certain about.

 

More than anything else regarding the suggested serious urgency, or lack there of this topic, I'm more fascinated by the peculiarity of humanity, and how they behaviorally approach it.

[Bluegrasscard]

In this interesting experiment, (where I personally think that I've at times been a product of the same type of circumstances making me second guess myself), they reported that the subjects went along with the group 37% of the time... and though not mentioned, that would also mean that the subjects deviated from the group with the correct answers 63% of the time.

 

I suppose that the percentage results can be more trusted especially if the experiment is performed many times rather than not, but what the study did find seemed quite plausible and logical regardless of what the actual numbers came out to be.

 

Personally, I have been in the company of 3 general scenarios...

 

1. Everyone thought that climate change was ridiculous.

2. Everyone thought that climate change was real.

3. A mixed bag, both for and against the theory.

 

In each, I pretty much kept quiet offering no strong view other than a shrug of the shoulders and an "I don't know", and watched in amazement how not only did people from either side voice theirs, but with it they tended to tear down the opposing views as being a product of obstinate stupidity.

 

Personally, I've been amazed how either side could so strongly cut down the other when neither knew for sure, though still weighing in as if they did.

 

Other than not knowing for sure, I personally stay neutral because I've heard points from both sides that sound reasonable enough to consider, yet never conclusive enough to feel certain about.

 

More than anything else regarding the suggested serious urgency, or lack there of this topic, I'm more fascinated by the peculiarity of humanity, and how they behaviorally approach it.

 

Good observations. I hope most people believe in climate change. Its the driver to that change that is the meaningful discussion. As of now, its clear that the IPCC CO2-as-a-primary/sole-driver are just wrong.

 

It would also be interesting to ask people where the main offender to athtropangenic global warming comes from. Fossils - right? Everyone seems know that...

 

But there is a problem. Oil fields have been found much deeper than an fossils. The deepest oil well is 40,000 feet deep. Deepest fossils - maybe 8 to 9,000 feel.

 

The limited supply of 'fossil fuel' maybe another common myth we have accepted without question.

 

Are Coal, Natural Gas, and Crude Oil Really "Fossil Fuels"? and Is There Really Any Oil Shortage?

[All Tell]

I know that there is climate change, what I question is man-made climate change.

 

The climate has changed many times in the past before men and before the industries that are now being targeted.

 

I have no issue with limiting pollutants. I have a huge issue with the draconian steps many MMCC disciples expect.

[Bluegrasscard]

This thread got honed in on the politically charged climate change topic. But there are other topics that are accepted as 'settled' when they are far from settled.

 

- Evolution as a purely natural phenomena that leads to changes in species and leads to new species.

Problem: Purely natural evolution has never been observed. Species do seem to change over time in some cases (the simple version is that humans are taller now than in the past). But is this true 'evolution' or just species reacting to different surroundings such as better or different food and nutritional supply. In any case, it has natural evolution of one species changing into another species has never been observed. And nature is not usually kind to natural mutations. Mutations that occur naturally usually can not produce offspring. However, forced mutations driven by scientists do occur (GMO crops anyone?).

This is not to say the alternative of pure creationism is the only alternative either.

 

This is another high profile 'science-non-science' debate that may have other alternatives to explain why we have fish DNA in us even though the randomness of natural species mutations would be highly unlikely.

 

- The sun as a simply a nuclear fission furnace.

Problem: The element of charged particles (plasma) and electromagnetism is largely ignored and discounted. 'Science' has yet to show why the solar wind accelerates the further away from sun it goes. In a Newtonian model where gravity is primary driver this should not happen - yet it does.

 

- Black holes / dark matter.

Problem: Never directly observed. And mainly created in theoretical models to make the Newtonian model 'work'. Is there more to the mechanics of the solar system and universe than gravity? E-universe theories are usually discounted in the mainstream. However, there appears to be far more involved that just gravity and charged matter (plasma and magnetic forces) is mostly ignored and attacked in the mainstream without objective review since it threatens the current theoretical models.

 

- Safety of nuclear power.

Problem: Fukushima. Its still a problem. Tsunamis, 500-year floods (Houston), etc may create more nuclear crisis's in the future. Release of radioactive material from active or inactive reactors and spent fuel in storage that may be breached in a catastrophic natural or man-caused event seems more of possibility with recent events. And the associated threats have large scale implications. One molecule of plutonium in your lungs is very bad news. Is the risk worth the reward? Should the use of nuclear or at least potential risks be re-visted?

 

The point is many things are accepted as settled when they are not. Alternatives and especially alternatives that have little or no observed evidence must be scrutinized as well. A lot accepted science drives entire industries (nuclear, green energy, etc.). There are reasons those that benefit from those industries will want to downplay or scoff at new scientific-based evidence that may change the thinking and public opinion.