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.
False, if you go back to the point at which the scientific method was fully codified, every scientist since has been doing what we would now consider science. As will the scientists who continue following it in the future. Science evolves because it is driven to by the framework of the SM, while our knowledge may change and be re-evaluated as nuance is discovered over time, the underlying methodology of research remains the same.
Part of the reason it is hard to take these conspiracy theories seriously, is I have worked around scientists and know the built in bias prevention that goes into that type of research. While I haven't worked at high levels in oil companies or the partisan news websites it seems many people go to for their science information, somehow I doubt they have the same level of bias prevention integrated into their work as the scientists who they love to sh*t on.
Codified? I was not aware of that. When and where please.
Part of the reason it is hard to take these conspiracy theories seriously, is I have worked around scientists and know the built in bias prevention that goes into that type of research.
If science (and scientists) can be corrupted or influenced for the sake of oil interests wny is it so hard to believe that it can be corrupted or influenced when BILLIONS of dollars of research funding are predicated on their being an immediate crisis?
It doesn't have to be some secret conspiracy, it's the realization that scientists do not exist in a vacuum, they are influenced by politics, funding realities, egos, hubris and even dogma.
It's an imperfect system yet we are attempting to impose absolute certainty over it and ridiculing anyone who is skeptical as a anti-science or a flat-earther.
Last edited by flatfootone; 09-22-2017 at 08:57 AM..
Interestingly, the cultists at the IPCC knew they could not build their case using "normal" science... that's why they invented and adopted "post-normal" science.
Elaborate? The people I worked with were biologists, I don't keep up with too much else.
Specifically, to form an opinion on this claim, I would need to know:
Who said they needed a new framework and where they published this claim?
What they said the new framework should be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
Codified? I was not aware of that. When and where please.
If science (and scientists) can be corrupted or influenced for the sake of oil interests wny is it so hard to believe that it can be corrupted or influenced when BILLIONS of dollars of research funding are predicated on their being an immediate crisis?
Because its fishy when you have a large majority of scientists in the specific field in question in agreement, while in disagreement you see a handful of scientists who are funded by oil companies, and a handful of scientists/non scientists in unrelated fields. By the way I have seen the grant process, scientists are not getting filthy rich off of it...
Since I am NOT an expert in the topic, I am content to go with the consensus position of the people who are - please note that this is NOT an ad-populum fallacy, as the ad-populum fallacy applies only to a population of non experts.
If that consensus changes I would be fine to also change my beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flatfootone
It doesn't have to be some secret conspiracy, it's the realization that scientists do not exist in a vacuum, they are influenced by politics, funding realities, egos, hubris and even dogma.
Which is why one of the primary purposes of following the SM is control of bias. It is why the null hypothesis exists, why peer review exists, etc... etc... Do Breitbart or Huffpost also follow a system designed specifically to control against their own biases when they write an article?
Of course not, you would have to be delusional to think so, they are in the business of specifically seeking bias, just like the people who ONLY get their news from one or the other are in the business of seeking to confirm their existing bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flatfootone
It's an imperfect system yet we are attempting to impose absolute certainty over it and ridiculing anyone who is skeptical as a anti-science or a flat-earther.
No such thing as a perfect system, that said - can you think of a system that has been better at advancing human knowledge and understanding than the SM?
Religion? Nope.
Politics? Nope.
Philosophy? Nope.
Maybe math.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 09-22-2017 at 09:09 AM..
The problem with the whole 97% argument is that it's basically a bullying tactic used to shut down debate.
You are meant to be intimidated by such a high number, like you are on the wrong side of the argument if there is such a high percentage with the opposing view.
What does 97% percent of scientists even MEAN?
97% agree that man plays a part in climate change but we don't know how much?
97% agree with the alarmist predictions we hear from the IPCC?
Which is it or is it something else entirely?
This always seems to be framed in this simplistic argument of 97% of believers vs non-believers. Believers of WHAT exactly?
This is even assuming for the sake of argument that the 97% percent figure is accurate and was arrived at by ethical, impartial and rigorous means.
Consensus is more in the realm of politics and absolute certainty is more in the realm of hubris.
Neither make for good science.
while I don't disagree with what you've said, my point in asking the question is that those who spout the 97% line have no real idea where it came from.... it actually came from a place. they haven't read the paper... I have.
the don't have a clue what the guy who wrote the paper intended. I do
they just spout 97% without even having a clue where it came from.
just an aside, you can find wonderful stuff out there on the internet. in fact if one looks hard enough, you can find a video of 2 scientists giving testimony under oath before the Senate where they point out that they are part of the 97% based on the paper the this came from, yet they are verifiable skeptics.
False, if you go back to the point at which the scientific method was fully codified, every scientist since has been doing what we would now consider science. As will the scientists who continue following it in the future. Science evolves because it is driven to by the framework of the SM, while our knowledge may change and be re-evaluated as nuance is discovered over time, the underlying methodology of research remains the same.
Part of the reason it is hard to take these conspiracy theories seriously, is I have worked around scientists and know the built in bias prevention that goes into that type of research. While I haven't worked at high levels in oil companies or the partisan news websites it seems many people go to for their science information, somehow I doubt they have the same level of bias prevention integrated into their work as the scientists who they love to sh*t on.
well it is absolutely verifiable that the 97% study failed utterly. so there is that.....
False, if you go back to the point at which the scientific method was fully codified, every scientist since has been doing what we would now consider science. As will the scientists who continue following it in the future. Science evolves because it is driven to by the framework of the SM, while our knowledge may change and be re-evaluated as nuance is discovered over time, the underlying methodology of research remains the same.
Part of the reason it is hard to take these conspiracy theories seriously, is I have worked around scientists and know the built in bias prevention that goes into that type of research. While I haven't worked at high levels in oil companies or the partisan news websites it seems many people go to for their science information, somehow I doubt they have the same level of bias prevention integrated into their work as the scientists who they love to sh*t on.
and speaking of the scientific method as it relates to CAGW, all I really have to say is "one single tree in Yamal"
if you don't know what that is, then your silly ranting's about scientific method is just bluster .
and speaking of the scientific method as it relates to CAGW, all I really have to say is "one single tree in Yamal"
if you don't know what that is, then your silly ranting's about scientific method is just bluster .
So because I am unaware of a quote from a topic that is not really in my field of expertise that I haven't spent a lot of time researching my viewpoint and experience working in a scientific field becomes "silly rantings"?
Does not seem very logically sound(actually its a blatant fallacy) to me but whatever floats your boat.
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.
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.
