(Un)Settled Science

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 40 min ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
(Un)Settled Science

It's true... until it isn't.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/52080

How many former scientific "truths" are now just discredited nonsense? Quite a few...

How many vilified nutjob theories are now accepted science? Again, quite a few...

So your certainty, especially with so much pressure and so little evidence, only makes me doubt you more.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 46 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
The so called "scientific

The so called "scientific truths" mentioned were not truths as you point out but theories based on limited observation. There are indeed many scientific truths that have been proven through repetition of their conclusions. I cite, Ohm's law, the laws of thermodynamics of which there are quite a few and Newton's laws of motion. The big bang theory is merely that, a theory. It is however based on many truths that have been discovered about the molecule, the atom and the various other particles that contribute to their makeup. We have already demonstrated through atomic theory that we can create matter and also destroy it. The big bangtheory is just a resizing of that ability to explain the universe. The thing people refuse to believe, because of religious bias or otherwise is that the universe always existed and was not created from nothing. Lending credibility to the big bang theory just goes against traditional belief.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 20 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
The degree of truth of a

The degree of truth of a scientific law/theory/understanding is limited to the volume of experiments conducted.

Feynman once said, "there's no such thing as an electron. There are only the set of experiments that indicate the existence of the electron and its properties."

As a young physicist, this completely blew me away. I always took certain things to be complete truths (electrons, gravity, etc.) But once you look at the history of science, the important (and most famous) experiments are the ones that disprove the prevailing theory.

It is true that it's hard to "test" climate change. You can't just prop up a few sample replicas of the Earth and jack up CO2 in one and not the other and compare the difference. That being said, we can test the following easily:
1) the radiative properties of CO2, CH4, etc.
2) the temperature all around the Earth
3) the physics of air, water, etc.

If you look at the fundamentals, it's a pretty straightforward conclusion - however, it does not precisely follow that the entire system will warm - there might be feedback effects (like stronger hurricanes which will act as a cooling mechanism).

Since we don't know, just like war, we have to work with probabilities. We don't know what the North Koreans will do, but we have to prepare for all possible outcomes, and weight each one with a probability, and our corresponding response. Same thing applies to global warming.

To completely ignore it is silly, just as it's silly to just assume the North Koreans won't launch an offensive. It's just naive.

Watcher
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 52 min ago
Joined: 03/23/2008 - 12:32pm
To see how a bogus and false

To see how a bogus and false scientific theory becomes the accepted and unassailable understanding of how a thing is, just research the Phlogiston theory.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 46 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Science is the discovery of

Science is the discovery of fact, not theory. The examples of what you claim as being the experiments that disprove prevailing theory are not experiments but the revealing of facts. The most famous are the earth is flat and the earth is the center of the universe. It is not necessary to be able to see or otherwise sense the consequences of every fact but to ascertain from the outcome the uniformity of the probable cause to surmise the significance of its source.

Your segue into a theory about the intent of the North Koreans was quite a stretch. In order for the North Koreans to launch an effective offensive against the United States, or anyone else for the matter would come through a strategy of first, softening us up for invasion and then mounting one. Even if one missile actually landed on the United States or one of its possessions in the Pacific even our milquetoast government would launch a military response that would annihilate North Korea. We have no evidence they are preparing to launch a direct attack and if they were building ships and transports (aircraft) to send troops they would be annihilated before they ever reached our shores.

What the North Koreans want is for us to abandon South Korea so they can attack it and they have yet to find a way to do it. If they are waiting for the American people to tire of having troops in South Korea and supporting them with sophisticated arms they will have to wait until the Military Industrial Complex loses its control of our government, an event not likely to happen even in the distant future. Economic punishment in the form of embargos or preventing others from not doing business with North Korea are acts of war and totally useless, as we should have discovered with our treatment of Cuba.

Our approach to North Korea should be to ignore them and force them to sh..... or get off the pot. Like Castro, their leadership has no intent on committing suicide. They will then become a problem for China and Russia as more of their people will flee to them just as Cubans and other Latinos, and particularly Mexicans have fled to the United States, the home of the world's richest poor.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
Reinhold Niebuhr: "It is when

Reinhold Niebuhr: "It is when we are unsure that we are doubly sure.”

It continues to amaze me that there is only one who holds the sceptre of certainty.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 46 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
If I am so sure and certain,

If I am so sure and certain, why do you doubt me?

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
Time to publish that book on

Time to publish that book on semantics you've been working on.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 46 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Why Mel, I do believe you

Why Mel, I do believe you might just be jealous.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
Why pm, I believe you just

Why pm, I believe you just might be clueless as regards linguistics/semantics.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 46 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
You may believe it but you

You may believe it but you can't prove it.

johnw
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 16 min ago
Joined: 03/11/2009 - 10:06am
More man made global warming
Log in to post comments