Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do you think scientists are now close minded?

Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 6:23:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
For the past few centuries, scientists have drifted from being open minded with scientists like Darwin and Einstein to people with too much critical thinking. It feels like people are worried about being safe than sorry. Science is about taking risks and coming up with your own ideas then testing them. I consider someone who goes to the extremely ridiculous realm of infinite possibilities outside the box a "mad scientist" and a real one at that. The rest in my opinion are fake
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 6:33:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 6:23:50 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
For the past few centuries, scientists have drifted from being open minded with scientists like Darwin and Einstein to people with too much critical thinking. It feels like people are worried about being safe than sorry. Science is about taking risks and coming up with your own ideas then testing them. I consider someone who goes to the extremely ridiculous realm of infinite possibilities outside the box a "mad scientist" and a real one at that. The rest in my opinion are fake

How are scientists more close-minded than they were 100 years ago? Please give examples.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 8:29:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 6:33:15 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/11/2014 6:23:50 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
For the past few centuries, scientists have drifted from being open minded with scientists like Darwin and Einstein to people with too much critical thinking. It feels like people are worried about being safe than sorry. Science is about taking risks and coming up with your own ideas then testing them. I consider someone who goes to the extremely ridiculous realm of infinite possibilities outside the box a "mad scientist" and a real one at that. The rest in my opinion are fake

How are scientists more close-minded than they were 100 years ago? Please give examples.

I would say money influences all science today. Almost all scientists today are beholden to someone to pay for their research. The money dictates their research. The money dictates the desired results of the person or govt paying the money. When was the last time you heard of a scientist not telling the money donor what they want to hear. Science says what the money wants to hear or thats the end of the money and that big fat paycheck. The scientists of yesterday funded their own research for the most part and weren't beholden to anyone or anything.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 10:22:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 6:33:15 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/11/2014 6:23:50 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
For the past few centuries, scientists have drifted from being open minded with scientists like Darwin and Einstein to people with too much critical thinking. It feels like people are worried about being safe than sorry. Science is about taking risks and coming up with your own ideas then testing them. I consider someone who goes to the extremely ridiculous realm of infinite possibilities outside the box a "mad scientist" and a real one at that. The rest in my opinion are fake

How are scientists more close-minded than they were 100 years ago? Please give examples.

It's the fact science focuses more on being accurate. Typically what happens is that scientists assume that the past discoveries that have been proven are true without reanalyzing everything.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 10:24:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 8:29:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/11/2014 6:33:15 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/11/2014 6:23:50 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
For the past few centuries, scientists have drifted from being open minded with scientists like Darwin and Einstein to people with too much critical thinking. It feels like people are worried about being safe than sorry. Science is about taking risks and coming up with your own ideas then testing them. I consider someone who goes to the extremely ridiculous realm of infinite possibilities outside the box a "mad scientist" and a real one at that. The rest in my opinion are fake

How are scientists more close-minded than they were 100 years ago? Please give examples.

I would say money influences all science today. Almost all scientists today are beholden to someone to pay for their research. The money dictates their research. The money dictates the desired results of the person or govt paying the money. When was the last time you heard of a scientist not telling the money donor what they want to hear. Science says what the money wants to hear or thats the end of the money and that big fat paycheck. The scientists of yesterday funded their own research for the most part and weren't beholden to anyone or anything.

Yea, money and fame are seemingly factors playing a role in the scientific community today.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 4:16:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 8:29:23 PM, sadolite wrote:

I would say money influences all science today. Almost all scientists today are beholden to someone to pay for their research. The money dictates their research. The money dictates the desired results of the person or govt paying the money. When was the last time you heard of a scientist not telling the money donor what they want to hear. Science says what the money wants to hear or thats the end of the money and that big fat paycheck. The scientists of yesterday funded their own research for the most part and weren't beholden to anyone or anything.

You're letting your cynicism blind you. All science is peer-reviewed, either in journals or by the patent office. Falsified data is easily detected, and costs the scientists their credibility, and therefore their careers. Also, not every scientist is working for the government or a corporation; many are working for universities. Why do you think attending university is so expensive? The money you pay to attend the scientists' lectures helps to fund their research.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 4:17:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 10:22:32 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:

It's the fact science focuses more on being accurate. Typically what happens is that scientists assume that the past discoveries that have been proven are true without reanalyzing everything.

That doesn't make sense. Why would they waste their time re-testing stuff that's already been proven, unless they had a good reason to believe it was incorrect?
Adam_Godzilla
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 4:36:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 4:16:58 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/11/2014 8:29:23 PM, sadolite wrote:

I would say money influences all science today. Almost all scientists today are beholden to someone to pay for their research. The money dictates their research. The money dictates the desired results of the person or govt paying the money. When was the last time you heard of a scientist not telling the money donor what they want to hear. Science says what the money wants to hear or thats the end of the money and that big fat paycheck. The scientists of yesterday funded their own research for the most part and weren't beholden to anyone or anything.

You're letting your cynicism blind you. All science is peer-reviewed, either in journals or by the patent office. Falsified data is easily detected, and costs the scientists their credibility, and therefore their careers. Also, not every scientist is working for the government or a corporation; many are working for universities. Why do you think attending university is so expensive? The money you pay to attend the scientists' lectures helps to fund their research.

I salute you.
New episode of OUTSIDERS: http://www.debate.org...
Episode 4 - They walk among us
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 6:31:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 6:23:50 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
For the past few centuries, scientists have drifted from being open minded with scientists like Darwin and Einstein to people with too much critical thinking. It feels like people are worried about being safe than sorry. Science is about taking risks and coming up with your own ideas then testing them. I consider someone who goes to the extremely ridiculous realm of infinite possibilities outside the box a "mad scientist" and a real one at that. The rest in my opinion are fake

Darwin and Einstein are paradigm shifters. Quite regularly science gets to a critical phase were the traditional science leaves unanswered questions. Einsteins work was in response to problems in classical electromagnetism, Darwins work was stimulated by observations made from fossils and the distribution of living organisms etc. In both cases other scientists were thinking along the same lines but Einstein and Darwin got their name on the trophy. Between crises in science it progresses in a non-revolutionary fashion. New crises are looming in dark matter for example.
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 6:52:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 6:23:50 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
For the past few centuries, scientists have drifted from being open minded with scientists like Darwin and Einstein to people with too much critical thinking. It feels like people are worried about being safe than sorry. Science is about taking risks and coming up with your own ideas then testing them. I consider someone who goes to the extremely ridiculous realm of infinite possibilities outside the box a "mad scientist" and a real one at that. The rest in my opinion are fake

I don't think scientist were "open-minded" with Darwin. On the contrary, they were fairly hard and skeptic with his theory, in my opinion due to pressure from religious groups who saw evolutionary theory as a threat.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 7:45:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 6:31:39 AM, chui wrote:

Darwin and Einstein are paradigm shifters. Quite regularly science gets to a critical phase were the traditional science leaves unanswered questions. Einsteins work was in response to problems in classical electromagnetism, Darwins work was stimulated by observations made from fossils and the distribution of living organisms etc. In both cases other scientists were thinking along the same lines but Einstein and Darwin got their name on the trophy. Between crises in science it progresses in a non-revolutionary fashion. New crises are looming in dark matter for example.

Darwin and Einstein get the credit for their theories, but they weren't the only ones studying that area. Many scientists were formulating theories about Evolution and Relativity; Darwin and Einstein just happened to develop the correct ones. If they hadn't done it, somebody would have.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 10:29:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 7:45:34 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/12/2014 6:31:39 AM, chui wrote:

Darwin and Einstein are paradigm shifters. Quite regularly science gets to a critical phase were the traditional science leaves unanswered questions. Einsteins work was in response to problems in classical electromagnetism, Darwins work was stimulated by observations made from fossils and the distribution of living organisms etc. In both cases other scientists were thinking along the same lines but Einstein and Darwin got their name on the trophy. Between crises in science it progresses in a non-revolutionary fashion. New crises are looming in dark matter for example.

Darwin and Einstein get the credit for their theories, but they weren't the only ones studying that area. Many scientists were formulating theories about Evolution and Relativity; Darwin and Einstein just happened to develop the correct ones. If they hadn't done it, somebody would have.

I quite agree. Einstein could not have developed relativity if the ground work had not been laid by Lorentz, Poincare, Maxwell, Heavyside etc. However if you read Einstein's 1905 paper 'on the electrodynamics of moving bodies' there is little doubt that he was a genius.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 3:48:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 4:16:58 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/11/2014 8:29:23 PM, sadolite wrote:

I would say money influences all science today. Almost all scientists today are beholden to someone to pay for their research. The money dictates their research. The money dictates the desired results of the person or govt paying the money. When was the last time you heard of a scientist not telling the money donor what they want to hear. Science says what the money wants to hear or thats the end of the money and that big fat paycheck. The scientists of yesterday funded their own research for the most part and weren't beholden to anyone or anything.

You're letting your cynicism blind you. All science is peer-reviewed, either in journals or by the patent office. Falsified data is easily detected, and costs the scientists their credibility, and therefore their careers. Also, not every scientist is working for the government or a corporation; many are working for universities. Why do you think attending university is so expensive? The money you pay to attend the scientists' lectures helps to fund their research.

"Falsified data is easily detected, " Oh you mean like all those doomsday predictions of the ice being gone from the poles. This is the year that was supposed to happen. Ya I have cynicism and rightly justified. And just to let you know "peer review" even has it's problems. I have read dozens of articles on peer review and it is NOT the be all end all of scientific research, Not by a long shot.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 7:03:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 3:48:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/12/2014 4:16:58 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/11/2014 8:29:23 PM, sadolite wrote:

I would say money influences all science today. Almost all scientists today are beholden to someone to pay for their research. The money dictates their research. The money dictates the desired results of the person or govt paying the money. When was the last time you heard of a scientist not telling the money donor what they want to hear. Science says what the money wants to hear or thats the end of the money and that big fat paycheck. The scientists of yesterday funded their own research for the most part and weren't beholden to anyone or anything.

You're letting your cynicism blind you. All science is peer-reviewed, either in journals or by the patent office. Falsified data is easily detected, and costs the scientists their credibility, and therefore their careers. Also, not every scientist is working for the government or a corporation; many are working for universities. Why do you think attending university is so expensive? The money you pay to attend the scientists' lectures helps to fund their research.

"Falsified data is easily detected, " Oh you mean like all those doomsday predictions of the ice being gone from the poles. This is the year that was supposed to happen. Ya I have cynicism and rightly justified. And just to let you know "peer review" even has it's problems. I have read dozens of articles on peer review and it is NOT the be all end all of scientific research, Not by a long shot.

Oh but of course sweetie. No ice reduced at all. Period.

http://blog.nuestroclima.com...

..............
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 7:04:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 3:48:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/12/2014 4:16:58 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/11/2014 8:29:23 PM, sadolite wrote:

I would say money influences all science today. Almost all scientists today are beholden to someone to pay for their research. The money dictates their research. The money dictates the desired results of the person or govt paying the money. When was the last time you heard of a scientist not telling the money donor what they want to hear. Science says what the money wants to hear or thats the end of the money and that big fat paycheck. The scientists of yesterday funded their own research for the most part and weren't beholden to anyone or anything.

You're letting your cynicism blind you. All science is peer-reviewed, either in journals or by the patent office. Falsified data is easily detected, and costs the scientists their credibility, and therefore their careers. Also, not every scientist is working for the government or a corporation; many are working for universities. Why do you think attending university is so expensive? The money you pay to attend the scientists' lectures helps to fund their research.

"Falsified data is easily detected, " Oh you mean like all those doomsday predictions of the ice being gone from the poles. This is the year that was supposed to happen. Ya I have cynicism and rightly justified. And just to let you know "peer review" even has it's problems. I have read dozens of articles on peer review and it is NOT the be all end all of scientific research, Not by a long shot.

Can you please cite the scientific paper where an exact year was given for icecap disappearance?
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 7:29:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 7:03:20 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/12/2014 3:48:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/12/2014 4:16:58 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/11/2014 8:29:23 PM, sadolite wrote:

I would say money influences all science today. Almost all scientists today are beholden to someone to pay for their research. The money dictates their research. The money dictates the desired results of the person or govt paying the money. When was the last time you heard of a scientist not telling the money donor what they want to hear. Science says what the money wants to hear or thats the end of the money and that big fat paycheck. The scientists of yesterday funded their own research for the most part and weren't beholden to anyone or anything.

You're letting your cynicism blind you. All science is peer-reviewed, either in journals or by the patent office. Falsified data is easily detected, and costs the scientists their credibility, and therefore their careers. Also, not every scientist is working for the government or a corporation; many are working for universities. Why do you think attending university is so expensive? The money you pay to attend the scientists' lectures helps to fund their research.

"Falsified data is easily detected, " Oh you mean like all those doomsday predictions of the ice being gone from the poles. This is the year that was supposed to happen. Ya I have cynicism and rightly justified. And just to let you know "peer review" even has it's problems. I have read dozens of articles on peer review and it is NOT the be all end all of scientific research, Not by a long shot.

Oh but of course sweetie. No ice reduced at all. Period.

http://blog.nuestroclima.com...


..............

You do know that 2007 was nearly 8 years ago.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 7:38:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 7:04:41 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/12/2014 3:48:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/12/2014 4:16:58 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/11/2014 8:29:23 PM, sadolite wrote:

I would say money influences all science today. Almost all scientists today are beholden to someone to pay for their research. The money dictates their research. The money dictates the desired results of the person or govt paying the money. When was the last time you heard of a scientist not telling the money donor what they want to hear. Science says what the money wants to hear or thats the end of the money and that big fat paycheck. The scientists of yesterday funded their own research for the most part and weren't beholden to anyone or anything.

You're letting your cynicism blind you. All science is peer-reviewed, either in journals or by the patent office. Falsified data is easily detected, and costs the scientists their credibility, and therefore their careers. Also, not every scientist is working for the government or a corporation; many are working for universities. Why do you think attending university is so expensive? The money you pay to attend the scientists' lectures helps to fund their research.

"Falsified data is easily detected, " Oh you mean like all those doomsday predictions of the ice being gone from the poles. This is the year that was supposed to happen. Ya I have cynicism and rightly justified. And just to let you know "peer review" even has it's problems. I have read dozens of articles on peer review and it is NOT the be all end all of scientific research, Not by a long shot.

Can you please cite the scientific paper where an exact year was given for icecap disappearance?

Al gore speaks for climate science. What he says is what policy is written from. I don't see that it matters if there is any paper on it. But there are dozens to choose from if your goal is to not satisfy your confirmation bias. Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic's summer ice could "completely disappear" by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com...
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 7:39:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 7:29:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/12/2014 7:03:20 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/12/2014 3:48:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/12/2014 4:16:58 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/11/2014 8:29:23 PM, sadolite wrote:

I would say money influences all science today. Almost all scientists today are beholden to someone to pay for their research. The money dictates their research. The money dictates the desired results of the person or govt paying the money. When was the last time you heard of a scientist not telling the money donor what they want to hear. Science says what the money wants to hear or thats the end of the money and that big fat paycheck. The scientists of yesterday funded their own research for the most part and weren't beholden to anyone or anything.

You're letting your cynicism blind you. All science is peer-reviewed, either in journals or by the patent office. Falsified data is easily detected, and costs the scientists their credibility, and therefore their careers. Also, not every scientist is working for the government or a corporation; many are working for universities. Why do you think attending university is so expensive? The money you pay to attend the scientists' lectures helps to fund their research.

"Falsified data is easily detected, " Oh you mean like all those doomsday predictions of the ice being gone from the poles. This is the year that was supposed to happen. Ya I have cynicism and rightly justified. And just to let you know "peer review" even has it's problems. I have read dozens of articles on peer review and it is NOT the be all end all of scientific research, Not by a long shot.

Oh but of course sweetie. No ice reduced at all. Period.

http://blog.nuestroclima.com...


..............

You do know that 2007 was nearly 8 years ago.

But 2012, only two years ago: http://jeremybouchez.files.wordpress.com...

Still no ice reduction, right?
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 7:46:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 7:38:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/12/2014 7:04:41 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/12/2014 3:48:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/12/2014 4:16:58 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/11/2014 8:29:23 PM, sadolite wrote:

I would say money influences all science today. Almost all scientists today are beholden to someone to pay for their research. The money dictates their research. The money dictates the desired results of the person or govt paying the money. When was the last time you heard of a scientist not telling the money donor what they want to hear. Science says what the money wants to hear or thats the end of the money and that big fat paycheck. The scientists of yesterday funded their own research for the most part and weren't beholden to anyone or anything.

You're letting your cynicism blind you. All science is peer-reviewed, either in journals or by the patent office. Falsified data is easily detected, and costs the scientists their credibility, and therefore their careers. Also, not every scientist is working for the government or a corporation; many are working for universities. Why do you think attending university is so expensive? The money you pay to attend the scientists' lectures helps to fund their research.

"Falsified data is easily detected, " Oh you mean like all those doomsday predictions of the ice being gone from the poles. This is the year that was supposed to happen. Ya I have cynicism and rightly justified. And just to let you know "peer review" even has it's problems. I have read dozens of articles on peer review and it is NOT the be all end all of scientific research, Not by a long shot.

Can you please cite the scientific paper where an exact year was given for icecap disappearance?

Al gore speaks for climate science. What he says is what policy is written from. I don't see that it matters if there is any paper on it. But there are dozens to choose from if your goal is to not satisfy your confirmation bias. Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic's summer ice could "completely disappear" by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com...

Now here is one that contradicts.

http://www.naturalnews.com...
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 7:49:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 7:39:43 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/12/2014 7:29:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/12/2014 7:03:20 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/12/2014 3:48:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/12/2014 4:16:58 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/11/2014 8:29:23 PM, sadolite wrote:

I would say money influences all science today. Almost all scientists today are beholden to someone to pay for their research. The money dictates their research. The money dictates the desired results of the person or govt paying the money. When was the last time you heard of a scientist not telling the money donor what they want to hear. Science says what the money wants to hear or thats the end of the money and that big fat paycheck. The scientists of yesterday funded their own research for the most part and weren't beholden to anyone or anything.

You're letting your cynicism blind you. All science is peer-reviewed, either in journals or by the patent office. Falsified data is easily detected, and costs the scientists their credibility, and therefore their careers. Also, not every scientist is working for the government or a corporation; many are working for universities. Why do you think attending university is so expensive? The money you pay to attend the scientists' lectures helps to fund their research.

"Falsified data is easily detected, " Oh you mean like all those doomsday predictions of the ice being gone from the poles. This is the year that was supposed to happen. Ya I have cynicism and rightly justified. And just to let you know "peer review" even has it's problems. I have read dozens of articles on peer review and it is NOT the be all end all of scientific research, Not by a long shot.

Oh but of course sweetie. No ice reduced at all. Period.

http://blog.nuestroclima.com...


..............

You do know that 2007 was nearly 8 years ago.

But 2012, only two years ago: http://jeremybouchez.files.wordpress.com...

Still no ice reduction, right?

For every source you post I can post one that contradicts it.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 7:54:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 7:49:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/12/2014 7:39:43 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/12/2014 7:29:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/12/2014 7:03:20 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/12/2014 3:48:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/12/2014 4:16:58 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/11/2014 8:29:23 PM, sadolite wrote:

I would say money influences all science today. Almost all scientists today are beholden to someone to pay for their research. The money dictates their research. The money dictates the desired results of the person or govt paying the money. When was the last time you heard of a scientist not telling the money donor what they want to hear. Science says what the money wants to hear or thats the end of the money and that big fat paycheck. The scientists of yesterday funded their own research for the most part and weren't beholden to anyone or anything.

You're letting your cynicism blind you. All science is peer-reviewed, either in journals or by the patent office. Falsified data is easily detected, and costs the scientists their credibility, and therefore their careers. Also, not every scientist is working for the government or a corporation; many are working for universities. Why do you think attending university is so expensive? The money you pay to attend the scientists' lectures helps to fund their research.

"Falsified data is easily detected, " Oh you mean like all those doomsday predictions of the ice being gone from the poles. This is the year that was supposed to happen. Ya I have cynicism and rightly justified. And just to let you know "peer review" even has it's problems. I have read dozens of articles on peer review and it is NOT the be all end all of scientific research, Not by a long shot.

Oh but of course sweetie. No ice reduced at all. Period.

http://blog.nuestroclima.com...


..............

You do know that 2007 was nearly 8 years ago.

But 2012, only two years ago: http://jeremybouchez.files.wordpress.com...

Still no ice reduction, right?

For every source you post I can post one that contradicts it.

I will never believe anything science has to say about the climate. It has been wrong on everyone of it's predictions It has a 100% failure rate at predicting anything. There has been no change in 20 years. But in all those 20 years it has been one doomsday prediction after another. You grasp at any anomaly as proof. Everything you see happening has happened a thousand times before. It will continue to happen a thousand time again. Show me all the graphs and charts you want, they aren't worth the paper they are written on.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 8:04:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here for your viewing pleasure is the latest dire doomsday report from that ever so accurate and corrupt institution that has been caught in so many lies it's pathetic. The IPCC

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 8:54:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 7:38:23 PM, sadolite wrote:

Al gore speaks for climate science. What he says is what policy is written from. I don't see that it matters if there is any paper on it. But there are dozens to choose from if your goal is to not satisfy your confirmation bias. Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic's summer ice could "completely disappear" by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions.

Al Gore is not a scientist, and as such has no credibility in this forum.

I am not going to dig around the internet looking for non-existent research papers. You made the claim, so you provide the source.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 9:13:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 4:16:58 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/11/2014 8:29:23 PM, sadolite wrote:

I would say money influences all science today. Almost all scientists today are beholden to someone to pay for their research. The money dictates their research. The money dictates the desired results of the person or govt paying the money. When was the last time you heard of a scientist not telling the money donor what they want to hear. Science says what the money wants to hear or thats the end of the money and that big fat paycheck. The scientists of yesterday funded their own research for the most part and weren't beholden to anyone or anything.

You're letting your cynicism blind you. All science is peer-reviewed, either in journals or by the patent office. Falsified data is easily detected, and costs the scientists their credibility, and therefore their careers. Also, not every scientist is working for the government or a corporation; many are working for universities. Why do you think attending university is so expensive? The money you pay to attend the scientists' lectures helps to fund their research.

Peer review doesn't guarantee accuracy. In fact I would argue that it encourages group think, and discourages differing opinions. Falsified data is not easy to detect when done well. Also people suck at detecting false information because their confirmation bias only accepts evidence that supports what they already believe or want to believe. What makes universities more trustworthy than government and corporations? I don't see why university scientists would be more trustworthy. The reason university is so expensive is explained here: https://www.youtube.com...
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 10:09:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 9:13:31 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:

Peer review doesn't guarantee accuracy. In fact I would argue that it encourages group think, and discourages differing opinions. Falsified data is not easy to detect when done well. Also people suck at detecting false information because their confirmation bias only accepts evidence that supports what they already believe or want to believe. What makes universities more trustworthy than government and corporations? I don't see why university scientists would be more trustworthy.

Because scientists try to disprove new theories. The simpler a theory is to disprove, and the more you fail to disprove it, the more likely your theory is to be correct. Take the theory that the Earth is round, for example: all we have to do to disprove that is travel around it without falling off.

The reason university is so expensive is explained here: https://www.youtube.com...

Interesting channel. I think I'll watch more of their videos. Thanks.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:05:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 10:09:34 PM, apb4y wrote:

Because scientists try to disprove new theories. The simpler a theory is to disprove, and the more you fail to disprove it, the more likely your theory is to be correct. Take the theory that the Earth is round, for example: all we have to do to disprove that is travel around it without falling off.

But then there are theories like the theory of dark matter making up over half the universe that is invisible and undetectable, which is basically impossible to disprove, but for some reason scientists are convinced it is true.

Also I'm glad you liked that channel.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 5:59:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:05:16 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:

But then there are theories like the theory of dark matter making up over half the universe that is invisible and undetectable, which is basically impossible to disprove, but for some reason scientists are convinced it is true.

"Dark matter" is a fancy way of saying "we know there's more stuff out there, but don't know what it is". Some scientists are trying to create new theories that better fit observations. If such a theory can be found to work, then dark matter will be unnecessary to explain the results and people will stop searching for it.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 8:00:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 8:54:34 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/12/2014 7:38:23 PM, sadolite wrote:

Al gore speaks for climate science. What he says is what policy is written from. I don't see that it matters if there is any paper on it. But there are dozens to choose from if your goal is to not satisfy your confirmation bias. Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic's summer ice could "completely disappear" by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions.

Al Gore is not a scientist, and as such has no credibility in this forum.

I am not going to dig around the internet looking for non-existent research papers. You made the claim, so you provide the source.

Al Gore speaks for the climate scientists
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 8:21:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 5:59:04 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:05:16 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:

But then there are theories like the theory of dark matter making up over half the universe that is invisible and undetectable, which is basically impossible to disprove, but for some reason scientists are convinced it is true.

"Dark matter" is a fancy way of saying "we know there's more stuff out there, but don't know what it is". Some scientists are trying to create new theories that better fit observations. If such a theory can be found to work, then dark matter will be unnecessary to explain the results and people will stop searching for it.

Isn't dark matter just a new academic and politically correct term for "ether"
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 1:53:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 5:59:04 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/12/2014 11:05:16 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:

But then there are theories like the theory of dark matter making up over half the universe that is invisible and undetectable, which is basically impossible to disprove, but for some reason scientists are convinced it is true.

"Dark matter" is a fancy way of saying "we know there's more stuff out there, but don't know what it is". Some scientists are trying to create new theories that better fit observations. If such a theory can be found to work, then dark matter will be unnecessary to explain the results and people will stop searching for it.

There is an alternative theory to dark matter that is ignored by main stream scientists. It is the electric universe theory. It states that electrical energy is the dominant force in the universe as opposed to the current belief of gravity being the dominant force in the universe. And the electric universe theory doesn"t rely on massive amounts of gravity from invisible matter in the forms of dark matter and black holes to explain the universe. More info here: https://www.thunderbolts.info...