Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
The Attic
A state of ignorance.
Page <<first <prev 4 of 6 next> last>>
Feb 17, 2017 11:10:01   #
FrumCA
 
boberic wrote:
Ah yes. The 97% consensus thing again. Aside from the fact that it is just not accurate, consensus has nothing to do with science. In any scientific inquiry there are ONLY 3 possibilities--Yes-- No- or unknown. Consensus has no place in science. Agreement is not proof.

A very logical and accurate summary.

Reply
Feb 17, 2017 11:12:02   #
green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20
 
Wellhiem wrote:
Exactly. Einstein became famous, because he came up with an alternative to Newtons law of gravity.
not exactly, he showed that Newton's laws are actually a special case of his Relativity theory, where the relative velocity of objects does NOT approach the speed of light.

Reply
Feb 17, 2017 11:14:21   #
Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.
 
FrumCA wrote:
Mostly liberal biased reporting. The issue is that the original standards that were being taught did not teach both sides of the story. And, if you bothered to read and digest the contents of the OP, school districts still have to option to teach climate change if they want to. The author denies the reality of the on-going climate change debate evidently relying on the oft debated ’97 percent consensus” argument to support her OP.


Do they teach both sides of the story when it comes to gravity? Do they teach that if you wish hard enough, you may be able to jump off a tall building and not fall? No they don't. Why? Because it's not science, and it has no place in a science class.
Neither do political sound bites.

Reply
 
 
Feb 17, 2017 11:18:03   #
Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.
 
green wrote:
not exactly, he showed that Newton's laws are actually a special case of his Relativity theory, where the relative velocity of objects does NOT approach the speed of light.


Newton's laws stated that they applied to all things under all circumstances. Einstein still had to tweek them slightly.

Reply
Feb 17, 2017 11:30:18   #
green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20
 
"Ah yes. The 97% consensus thing again. Aside from the fact that it is just not accurate, consensus has nothing to do with science. In any scientific inquiry there are ONLY 3 possibilities--Yes-- No- or unknown. Consensus has no place in science. Agreement is not proof."

FrumCA wrote:
A very logical and accurate summary.
not exactly...

"god does not roll dice" Perhaps Einstein said it, look it up, if you care.... but science definitely does.

Science is all about probabilities, and assumptions, and every branch of science is interconnected with every other branch of science. Science looks at all the available data and comes up with the best guess. Not only that, but science calculates the odds of that guess being right. Not only that but science re-calculates whenever new data is presented.

with Newton's laws of motion, the preponderance of evidence showed they were 100% correct and scientific consensus agreed that they were true. Along comes Lorentz and Einstein and another guy without a good publicist and they say that actually mass, time and space can change their values at high speed. It actually helped to explain some phenomena that particle physicists were seeing.

Ok, so now the laws of motion have changed, Newton is still good, just in the domain of small relative velocities. His knowledge was known and now is expanded upon. I guess what is not known is what happens when the equations go to infinity... because our mathematics cannot properly handle that concept.

Reply
Feb 17, 2017 11:32:50   #
BigBear Loc: Northern CT
 
Wellhiem wrote:
That just simply doesn't happen. As green has said, if a scientist is caught falsifying data, he is ostracised. That's why any experiment has to be independently repeated, and submitted to peer review. Even post graduate science students risk being expelled.


Ostracised by whom ??
By liberals like Gore who make millions on the premise that the earth is burning up and need to keep it perpetuating ??
There is nothing independent about being a liberal. Anything they do has to be done while in mobs to keep any one of them from being able to think about what they are actually doing.

Reply
Feb 17, 2017 11:40:38   #
Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.
 
BigBear wrote:
Ostracised by whom ??
By liberals like Gore who make millions on the premise that the earth is burning up and need to keep it perpetuating ??
There is nothing independent about being a liberal. Anything they do has to be done while in mobs to keep any one of them from being able to think about what they are actually doing.


To answer your question; they're ostracised by the rest of the science community. No-one will work with them again.
In response to the rest of your post; resorting to political mud slinging, is no alternative to understanding.

Reply
 
 
Feb 17, 2017 11:46:33   #
Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.
 
green wrote:
"Ah yes. The 97% consensus thing again. Aside from the fact that it is just not accurate, consensus has nothing to do with science. In any scientific inquiry there are ONLY 3 possibilities--Yes-- No- or unknown. Consensus has no place in science. Agreement is not proof."

not exactly...

"god does not roll dice" Perhaps Einstein said it, look it up, if you care.... but science definitely does.

Science is all about probabilities, and assumptions, and every branch of science is interconnected with every other branch of science. Science looks at all the available data and comes up with the best guess. Not only that, but science calculates the odds of that guess being right. Not only that but science re-calculates whenever new data is presented.

with Newton's laws of motion, the preponderance of evidence showed they were 100% correct and scientific consensus agreed that they were true. Along comes Lorentz and Einstein and another guy without a good publicist and they say that actually mass, time and space can change their values at high speed. It actually helped to explain some phenomena that particle physicists were seeing.

Ok, so now the laws of motion have changed, Newton is still good, just in the domain of small relative velocities. His knowledge was known and now is expanded upon. I guess what is not known is what happens when the equations go to infinity... because our mathematics cannot properly handle that concept.
"Ah yes. The 97% consensus thing again. Aside... (show quote)


A very good book that covers that is: "Does God Play Dice? The Mathematics of Chaos." by Ian Stewart.

Reply
Feb 17, 2017 11:46:46   #
BigBear Loc: Northern CT
 
Wellhiem wrote:
To answer your question; they're ostracised by the rest of the science community. No-one will work with them again.
In response to the rest of your post; resorting to political mud slinging, is no alternative to understanding.


They don't work outside of their own community and couldn't care less what others think about them as long as the money keeps flowing their way.

Reply
Feb 17, 2017 11:48:16   #
Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.
 
BigBear wrote:
They don't work outside of their own community and couldn't care less what others think about them as long as the money keeps flowing their way.


Sorry but you lack of comprehension is beyond my ability to inform.

Reply
Feb 17, 2017 11:51:31   #
BigBear Loc: Northern CT
 
Wellhiem wrote:
Sorry but you lack of comprehension is beyond my ability to inform.


You're stuck on the premise that they all work together in harmony with one another.

Reply
 
 
Feb 17, 2017 11:58:41   #
Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.
 
BigBear wrote:
You're stuck on the premise that they all work together in harmony with one another.


When did I say or hint at that?

Reply
Feb 17, 2017 12:02:59   #
BigBear Loc: Northern CT
 
Wellhiem wrote:
When did I say or hint at that?


When you stated that they hold each other accountable.

Reply
Feb 17, 2017 12:13:42   #
Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.
 
BigBear wrote:
When you stated that they hold each other accountable.


They do in as much as any experiment has to be independently repeatable. If one claims that he got a certain result 3 times in a row, and then no-one else gets the same result, they will look very closely at his data. If they find he's manipulated it in any way, nobody will work with him again, as it'll diminish their credibility.

Reply
Feb 17, 2017 12:15:33   #
BigBear Loc: Northern CT
 
Wellhiem wrote:
They do in as much as any experiment has to be independently repeatable. If one claims that he got a certain result 3 times in a row, and then no-one else gets the same result, they will look very closely at his data. If they find he's manipulated it in any way, nobody will work with him again, as it'll diminish their credibility.


The liberals don't have the scruples to question the results as long it gets them where they want to be.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
The Attic
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.