Posted on 04/04/2014 5:25:29 PM PDT by Moseley
The stakes are higher than most conservatives realize. When the fraud of man-made global warming finally dies, folks will start thinking: What else were we lied to about? How could the high priests of modern knowledge have confidently insisted something that was never remotely plausible?
A key element of progressivism is having wise philosopher-kings who make benevolent decisions for the masses. It is a core element of conservatism that you can make decisions for yourself. But for progressives, it is essential to convince the public that the designated authorities know better than you do, including what to eat, how to raise your kids, how to educate children, whom to vote for, etc.
Who will control society is up for grabs. The entire progressive religion depends upon maintaining public belief that their self-declared experts are all-knowing. Conformity is more important than truth. So desperate Warmists are intensifying their efforts even as their argument collapses in full view of everyone.
But a scientist with an opinion is not a scientist. A real scientist is cheerfully open to being proven wrong, eager for discovery more than for satisfying his ego. Many of the most important discoveries were not what a researcher was expecting. A scientist will have suspicions and a working hypothesis, but only with an open mind.
Instead, modern science has become a festival of speculation. Progressives simply speculate about what might be true and then read tea leaves for any hint consistent with their imagination.
We have special-effects television shows about dinosaurs showing the coloring of dinosaurs whose skin we have never seen and the sounds they make which we have never heard. Science shows tell us that the mother dinosaur is starting to worry that day about the storm approaching, and that the young dinosaurs are feeling playful.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/the-lefts-anti-science/#IrlhJoKeQW8qsjrv.99
Modern scientists are “Imagineers.” Such tripe should be condemned because it encourages the modern attitude that speculation equals science. A culture of unbridled speculation permeates every aspect of today’s scientific world. If you read the most sophisticated scientific papers and analyses, you would see guesswork transformed into fact there in black and white. That is science fiction, not science. Flights of imagination have become popular under “thought experiments,” a contradiction in terms.
Real science is governed by the Scientific Method. Unless a hypothesis can be proven true or false by repeatable and repeated experiments it isn’t science. Results must be verified by independent teams of unbiased researchers, by experiments conducted under varying conditions and in different locations. Anything less doesn’t qualify as science. (Now, to be fair, probably 99 percent of the work of science is the thankless drudgery of collecting raw data out in the field. But those heroes who do the leg work are not drawing conclusions.)
A perfect example is Galileo. Aristotle and other Greek philosophers determined – by pure imagination or thought experiments – that if you drop a large and small cannonball, the larger one will fall faster. But nobody tried it until Galilei Galileo dropped cannonballs off the leaning tower of Pisa. The great Aristotle was wrong. Aristotle was brilliant, but totally wrong. Aristotle was highly educated, but wrong. And the physics Galileo discovered helped transform our understanding of nature. We would not have the orbital mechanics needed to land a man on the moon if Galileo hadn’t tested Aristotle’s conclusions. It doesn’t matter if someone is wise or educated; his opinion is meaningless without putting it to the test.
Another example is cold fusion. In 1989, chemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann made headlines by announcing that they had achieved fusion at room temperature – “cold” fusion. That would mean the generation of limitless, clean energy from water under relatively simple conditions. But when other researchers tried to repeat the experiments, no one could reproduce their positive results.
That is real science. Other teams have to be able to reproduce the same results. You can’t get from here all the way to science without repeating the experiment many times. Cold fusion was disproven at the stage of other teams trying to reproduce the results.
But that’s the problem: No one can ever perform even a single experiment to prove man-made global warming or evolution (meaning life springing from non-life) true or false. For certain, no experiment could be repeated.
The attempt to conflate the two is not suprising but of course is specious.
TTOE is a full Scientific Theory that meets all the criteria thereof.
AGW is at best a hypothesis that meets exactly none.
I strongly suggest WND get a scientist to post these kinds of articles. Scientists don't generally post about legal matters...
“TTOE is a full Scientific Theory that meets all the criteria thereof”
TTOE does not even qualify as a valid theory. The first step in the Scientific Method is Valid Observation.
There has never been an observation of one species evolving into another species. Not even at the microbial level. Adaptation, yes. Evolution, no. Adaptations are not evolution.
DNA research has proven that we did not evolve from Neaderthals, monkeys, nor anything else.
So, how did we get here? Beats me.
In many cases, the correct scientific answer is simply, “We don’t know, yet. But we’re working on it.”
Perhaps, but lawyers are experts in EVIDENCE.
>>TTOE does not even qualify as a valid theory. The first step in the Scientific Method is Valid Observation.<<
There has never been an observation of one species evolving into another species. Not even at the microbial level. Adaptation, yes. Evolution, no. Adaptations are not evolution.<<
1) You don’t understand stochasticism. Non unusual among the scientific illetiterate.
2) There have been specific observations of species change. Subway flies in New York cannot mate/procreate with abovegound flies. That is one of hundreds of examples.
>>DNA research has proven that we did not evolve from Neaderthals, monkeys, nor anything else.<<
Specious nonsense — that 98% assertion (courtesy of the self-referential ICR) has been disproved scientifically and logically for decades.
>>So, how did we get here? Beats me.
In many cases, the correct scientific answer is simply, “We don’t know, yet. But we’re working on it.”<<
But that is not the scientific answer. TToE is crystal clear on the broad picture of how Homo Sapiens came to be.
How did the Earth get here? We haven’t seen a life-sustaining planet form. Do you also completely discount geology? I assume you need abiogenesis to explain the Earth? And physics. You need to explain where physics came from.
TTOE meets and exceeds all criteria for a Scientific Theory (and I gather you don’t know what one is since you start with a complete incorrect statement).
Learn some science, then you can come back. And PLEASE don’t waste time with Answers In Genesis — every single talking point there has been crushed by real science in both proof and argumentation.
>>Perhaps, but lawyers are experts in EVIDENCE<<
If a lawyer had billions of physical pieces of evidence that can be linked in a logical unassailable manner, would that suffice?
I know you are a lawyer — would you be OK with someone arguing Promissary Esstoppel without even understanding Consideration?
People seem to think an uneducated opinion is as valid as one based in subject knowledge.
But AGW is nothing new, it's just the biggest. We had DDT, nuclear energy, overpopulation, two minutes to midnight for decades, silicon breast implants, saccharine, and I'm sure I'm forgetting many. Oh, yes, we now have the fracking scare. It all has made me very suspicious whenever liberals base a policy on alleged science.
There is no anthropomorphic global warming. It’s a hoax.
Wish the article didn’t muddy the fact of evolution along with it.
(My church, the RC Church has no problem with God working through evolution)
Well said. Bravo!!
There is no anthropomorphic global warming. It’s a hoax.
Wish the article didn’t muddy the fact of evolution along with it.
(My church, the RC Church has no problem with God working through evolution)
Every piece of that evidence is fully and wholly consistent with a theory of intelligent design.
First, I studied physics for several years at Hampshire College, taking classes at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst through the exchange of the Five College system.
The hypothesis of evolution is incapable of being tested scientifically.
Part of the Scientific Method is to formulate a hypothesis that is CAPABLE of being tested as true or false — technically the null hypothesis is capable of being proven false.
The next step is to design an experiment capable of proving the hypothesis true or false (proving the null hypothesis false).
The Scientific Method demands that the hypothesis be up to the standard of being testable, and also demands that the experiment be WELL-designed... not just any experiment.
The hypothesis of evolution is incapable of being tested by experimental results.
One of the most important steps when using a tool is to KNOW the LIMITS of your tool: When does it work and when does it not work.
What happened before the consciousness of humans began or history started being recorded is impossible for science to investigate.
Science can only investigate phenomenon that can be observed NOW, in the present, with repeated experiments now in the present.
Where science has been corrupted and has gone off the rails is that SPECULATION has replaced the Scientific Method.
So people get all excited and emotionally invested in what COULD be true, and then assume it is true.
Possibility is not proof.
But mere possibility is all that modern science has degenerated into.
Again:
Possibility is not proof.
>>Every piece of that evidence is fully and wholly consistent with a theory of intelligent design.<<
ID is not a Scientific Theory by any definition (again, remember my example of not understanding terms).
It is a fun piece of philosophy but does not rise to a Scientific Theory until you physically introduce us to the Designer, who we may interrogate. Not an entity in thought, but a corporeal being.
ID is just a satisfying emotional middleground.
But neither ID or LT are useful in predicting what will happen going forward.
Sometimes an expert is worse than an ignoramus.
In regard to AGW the experts in the subject literally know less than the guy who picks up your garbage every Tuesday.
So the Big Bang theory is not science because we won’t be able to test it?
Someone who has subject matter knowledge knows enough NOT TO HAVE AN OPINION.
Socrates said that he was the wisest man alive (as the Oracle at Delphi proclaimed him) ONLY in the sense that Socrates knew how much he did not know.
The person who knows little thinks he knows a lot.
The person who knows more realizes how little he really knows.
A scientific “opinion” is a contradiction in terms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.