· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·
Posted on 09/19/2014 10:54:47 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
Well done!
And I just love this zinger:
...science advocate, cultural illiterate, mendacious anti-Catholic propagandist, and possible serial fabulist Neil DeGrasse Tyson....
People like to define "scientist" in such a way as to include themselves and their special interest group while excluding others.
The article itself bears witness to that.
Naming Aristotle as the first “proto-scientist” betrays the author’s lack of a classical education.
The first “proto-scientist” was (as far back as is recorded) was Imhotep, an Egyptian circa 2650-2600 BC.
Much of what Aristotle did was based on knowledge he gained from Pharonic Egypt, which was gained from the sea-people of western north Africa (or ancient Libya: everything west of the middle of the Nile Delta to the Atlantic sea coast {mostly a blue-eyed, blond people}).
exactly
Liberal teachers are rotten liars through and through. Where are these supposed conservatives on school boards? Non-existent or minimal. Just about every public school or college is overrun with liberal administrators and teachers. And that's a fact. My kids grinned and beared it while in college, having to hear all the liberal rants from teachers. They made it through quickly and graduated just so they wouldn't have to hear any more of it.
definition of "scientist":
definition of "physical science":
definition of "scientific method":
So Bill Nye the Science Guy clearly qualifies as a "scientist".
Of course, not every word ever uttered by Nye qualifies as "scientific".
Astronomers can't run controlled experiments on the nature of stars... and yet the Main Sequence is a very scientific explanation of stellar activity and stellar populations.
Not every science has the capacity for "controlled experiments".
It's making predictions that can be verified by further observation that's important.
As for "climate science"... it's not that it is fundamentally unscientific... it could be scientific. The problem with "climate science" as it exists today is that it has been completely and totally hijacked by a political and economic agenda run by forces that are so powerful they make Galileo's opponents look like pipsqueaks in comparison.
If you say ANYTHING against the POLITICAL ORTHODOXY of "climate science" (as it is defined by the powerful forces that control it) you will be permanently unemployed by all university/main-stream-research institutions. And all "climate scientists" know that.
Some of them brave the opposition and speak out anyway (fully aware they have forever burned their bridges to the establishment) but most knuckle under and repeat the incantations of the "climate science" priests.
This all has NOTHING to do with what "climate science" could be, if it were truly treated as a science, but is only about the very powerful socialist forces on planet earth today who have coopted "climate science" as an anti-capitalist tool.
This is CA, though. So it’s to be expected. I reported it to my counselor, but it didn’t go anywhere.
No Science, No Logic and No Morality: Atheism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxz84kS8k4U
I agree with the author.
Our “Modern” culture has taken Science to mean Truth on the surface, and when they are challenged with contradictions they will shift into science being the process.
To think this issue is not ideologically driven would be foolish. Everybody, and I mean everybody has a bias.
The Left has co-opted “Reason” as their clarion call for a just world. It is a world that can’t exist using their own logic and leaves them only to “Embrace Uncertainty” as their only escape.
They are in fact, certain about everything being uncertain. In addition, they will fight anybody that is certain because to be certain is to be judgmental and that is unacceptable.
Mathematics and the physical sciences are more amenable to the “scientific method”. Charlatans always hover along the fringes and champion various “pseudo-sciences” which derive their popularity from being delivered more by celebrities and other social elites than those actually driven by actual results.
Worse. They are whores for a Federal grant check.
It's difficult to figure out what's what these days. You may think someone is a tap-dancer, but presto! you are wrong. That someone is actually brain surgeon. Likewise, one should not assume that the fellow at IBM Almaden who has a name-plate on his desk that reads "RESEARCH SCIENTIST" is actually a scientist. He might not be. Here are some useful rules of thumb to help tell if someone is a real scientist...
If a person goes to church, he is not a scientist. If he reads Carl Sagan books, he is a scientist. If he believes that his ancestors are dead monkeys buried in the ground, he is a scientist. If he wonders whether Bill Nye is gay, he is not a scientist. If he is an atheist, he is a scientist. If he believes in God, he is not a scientist. That should help.
Fred likes to watch TV.
the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena,
His favorite show is on fridays at 8.
experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and
He turns on the TV.
a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis."
At 8pm Fred discovers that today is thursday.
Fred is a scientist!
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.