U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-05-2013, 09:14 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,323,168 times
Reputation: 4167

Advertisements

If we spent a small portion of the money govt spends on trying to control and dictate daily operations to companies, on actually pursuing and prosecuting lawbreakers in those companies instead, we would have much more honest companies... and we could get rid of 2/3 of the Federal government to boot.

But that's another argument.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 04-05-2013, 09:28 AM
 
13,056 posts, read 12,464,967 times
Reputation: 2613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua View Post
Like you, I'm not a scientist, so I haven't studied climate science. I could start looking it up for you, but I'm too sleepy to. Why? Are you going to try to reason it all out without a degree in science?

Science is a very simplistic process. Science is not a field, it is a method or approach to evaluation.

Science can be applied to many areas of study.

The basic process of science is often learned in grade school to high school.

Here is a basic flowchart from a site I found (it isn't detailed to all the steps as it is missing the verification, validation, and replication phases in detail, but it gives a fair idea of what I am talking about):

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/



Notice the problem as it concerns climate science?


It may not be your fault for misunderstanding this as many educational institutions have begun to dismiss traditional methods in lieu of a more "new age" or "modern" approach which to the detriment of science omits the verification, validation, and replication phases (ie the "is the hypotehsis true/false") of the method. This is often done to bring legitimacy to various fields of study who can not validate their work due to the limitations of our technology or ability concerning that study (ie they can only speculate at the validity of results).

If you look around, you can see a generic circular process that is akin to "Observe, suppose, test, communicate results" which is vague and gives the impression that such is "scientific". It is not.


Here is an interesting write up concerning the problem of these "modern" methods being applied to scientific process:

‘science’s dirtiest secret: The “scientific method” of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation.’

It is a good read. It talks about the lacking of using statistical analysis as a verification tool. Statistics are important in the process of discovery, but they can not establish validity.

There is a quote from it that I think is fitting:

“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” – Lord Ernest Rutherford

Last edited by Nomander; 04-05-2013 at 09:41 AM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-05-2013, 01:56 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
46,080 posts, read 49,720,713 times
Reputation: 15112
Not all science is experiment. For instance, it is either difficult or impossible to do experiments in astronomy or earth science.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-05-2013, 02:11 PM
 
7,300 posts, read 6,388,250 times
Reputation: 2903
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
Same principle applies to global warming. Left wing environazi extremists funding research and paying for the results they want.
LOL! You right wingers have the mirrors up to your faces again? omg

Wrong, as usual. The Manhattan Institute, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, the Scaifes, the American Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute and hundreds of thousands more right wing extremist million-dollar donors interested in denying science, so that private enterprise can continue our downward slope (for profit of course), are not financing liberals. They're financing RIGHT WING CAUSES, of which one is DENYING SCIENCE, DENYING GLOBAL WARMING.

But to you the right wing million-dollar think tanks are financing liberal causes, eh? LOL! Dementia.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-05-2013, 02:19 PM
 
3,846 posts, read 2,268,320 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Not all science is experiment. For instance, it is either difficult or impossible to do experiments in astronomy or earth science.
Observe and theorize?

Sci-theorists?

If a member has an agenda, he would be a consciency theorist.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-05-2013, 02:54 PM
 
13,056 posts, read 12,464,967 times
Reputation: 2613
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Not all science is experiment. For instance, it is either difficult or impossible to do experiments in astronomy or earth science.

Then they are not scientifically validated.

Science is a specific process. If you can not establish your position through such process, you are guessing and until you can establish such, any conclusion shall be considered as "guesses" which might as well be the same as religious dogma.

Do you think this is the first time we have dealt with subjects that were difficult to attend to such a rigorous process?

If you can not apply scientific process, it isn't science.

Point is... ALL "real" science is experiment. If they do not apply such, it is NOT science. They may apply elements of "scientific process", but that does not make them "science".

We have deluded ourselves in order to chase bias. If you can not follow the traditional scientific method, you are not practicing science, just mimicking elements of it.

Why do you think many traditional scientific fields scoff at so many others? They are required to make their claims evident while so many of the "soft" sciences simply speculate to a conclusion.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-05-2013, 02:57 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
46,080 posts, read 49,720,713 times
Reputation: 15112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Then they are not scientifically validated.

Science is a specific process. If you can not establish your position through such process, you are guessing and until you can establish such, any conclusion shall be considered as "guesses" which might as well be the same as religious dogma.

Do you think this is the first time we have dealt with subjects that were difficult to attend to such a rigorous process?
So, astronomy is just guesses?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-05-2013, 03:07 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 7,712,450 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
So, astronomy is just guesses?
Seems nomander likes to play this card everytime, or perhaps they truly think they are the decider of what science is and isn't.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-05-2013, 03:07 PM
 
7,300 posts, read 6,388,250 times
Reputation: 2903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Then they are not scientifically validated.

Science is a specific process. If you can not establish your position through such process, you are guessing and until you can establish such, any conclusion shall be considered as "guesses" which might as well be the same as religious dogma.

Do you think this is the first time we have dealt with subjects that were difficult to attend to such a rigorous process?

If you can not apply scientific process, it isn't science.

Point is... ALL "real" science is experiment. If they do not apply such, it is NOT science. They may apply elements of "scientific process", but that does not make them "science".

We have deluded ourselves in order to chase bias. If you can not follow the traditional scientific method, you are not practicing science, just mimicking elements of it.

Why do you think many traditional scientific fields scoff at so many others? They are required to make their claims evident while so many of the "soft" sciences simply speculate to a conclusion.
That's the problem with the religious. Because religious ideas are static, that is, they don't change from the way they were written down by whomever wrote them down, they feel that science is "wrong" because it is constantly tested, constantly challenged, constantly re-assessed, although that is how science arrives at answers, by constantly questioning itself.

Religion is never tested (of course, it would pass no tests of any sort). The way the bearded men wrote it down is the way the religious believe it, and that's all. The religious lend themselves to all kinds of denials of science, in part because they feel that if anything is tested, has to be tested, and has to be re-assessed it's wrong, and religion is right because it's never tested.

And as for the right wingers financing the denial of global warming, they have a profit stake in it, that's all. Some of them understand that global warming is a reality, but don't care because for them profit comes above all things, no matter how dire the effects of what they're doing to get those profits might be.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-05-2013, 04:04 PM
 
13,056 posts, read 12,464,967 times
Reputation: 2613
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
So, astronomy is just guesses?
Can they establish their speculations through the scientific method. That is, can they verify, validate and replicate their speculations? What do you think?
Rate this post positively
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top