The problem of false balance when reporting on science

Jul 17, 2014 by Peter Ellerton, The Conversation
Hard to find the right balance. Flickr/Paxson Woelber , CC BY

How do you know the people billed as science experts that you see, hear and read about in the media are really all that credible? Or have they been included just to create a perception of balance in the coverage of an issue?

It's a problem for any media and something the BBC's Trust is trying to address in its latest report on impartiality in programming.

As part of ongoing training, staff, particularly in non-news programs, were told that impartiality is not just about including a wide range of views on an issue, as this can lead to a "false balance". This is the process of providing a platform for people whose views do not accord with established or dominant positions simply for the sake of seeming "balanced".

The BBC has been criticised before for "false balance" and there are reports now that certain climate change sceptics are banned from BBC News, although this is denied by the BBC.

It's understandable that such false balance could grow from a desire to seem impartial, and particularly so since public broadcasters such as the BBC and the ABC in Australia are sensitive to claims of imbalance or bias.

Couple this with the need to negotiate the difficult ground of expert opinion, authentic balance and audience expectation, not to mention the always delicate tension between the imperatives of news and entertainment, and it hardly seems surprising that mistakes are made. An investigation this year found the ABC breached its own impartiality standards in its Catalyst program last year on statins and heart disease.

Finding the right balance

How then can journalists decide the best way to present a scientific issue to ensure accurate representation of the views of the community of experts? Indeed, how can any of us determine if what we are seeing in the media is balanced or a misrepresentation of expert opinion?

As I have written elsewhere, it is important to not confuse the right to be heard with an imagined right to be taken seriously. If an idea fails to survive in the community of experts, its public profile should diminish in proportion to its failure to generate consensus within that community.

A common reply to this is that science isn't about consensus, it's about the truth. This is so, but to use a consensus as evidence of error is fallacious reasoning.

While it's true that some presently accepted notions have in the past been peripheral, the idea that simply being against the majority view equates to holding your intellectual ground in the best tradition of the enlightenment is ludicrous.

If all views are equal, then all views are worthless.

Were I to propose an idea free of testing or argument, I could not reasonably expect my idea to be as credible as those subject to rigorous experimentation and collaborative review. If such equality did exist then progress would be impossible, since progress is marked by the testing and rejection of ideas.

Defining an expert

In the case of science, this testing is the process of experimentation, data analysis and peer review. So if someone – scientist or otherwise – has not worked and published in an area, then they are not an expert in that area.

The first imperative for a journalist covering any story is to determine exactly in what field the issue best sits and then to seek advice from people who work and publish in that field.

Knowing how the issue fits into the broader picture of scientific investigation is very useful in determining this. It is one of the reasons that good science journalism follows from having journalists with some training in science.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
An expert versus who?

Such a selection process, performed transparently, is an excellent defence against charges of bias.

Avoiding false balance

False balance can also be created by assuming that a person from outside the field (a non-expert) will somehow have a perspective that will shed light on an issue, that the real expert is too "caught up in the details" to be objective.

But suggesting that an expert is naive usually indicates an attempt at discrediting rather than truth seeking. Credibility is more about process than authority, and to be a recognised expert is to work within the process of science.

Also, if a piece of science is being criticised, we should ask if the criticism itself has been published. It's not enough that someone with apparent authority casts doubt as this is simply an appeal to authority – an appeal that critics of mainstream science themselves use as a warrant to reject consensus.

A second journalistic imperative would be to recognise that not all issues are binary.

The metaphor that a coin has two sides is a powerful one, and the temptation to look at both sides of an issue is naturally strong. But the metaphor also assumes an equal weighting, and that both sides present the same space for discussion.

Proof and evidence

When an issue is genuinely controversial, the burden of proof is shared between opposing views. When a view is not mainstream, say that scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the public, the burden of proof sits with those promoting that view.

In such cases, as Christopher Hitchens succinctly put it:

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Attempting to dishonestly shift the burden of proof is a common device in the push to have young earth creationism taught in science classrooms.

The idea of "teaching both sides" or that students should be allowed to make up their own minds seems again like a recourse to the most basic ideas of a liberal education, but is in reality an attempt to bypass expert consensus, to offload the burden of proof rather than own it.

The fact is, that for issues such as creationism, vaccination and that is occurring and is a function of human activity, it's not about journalists suppressing views, it's about quality control of information.

Stay with the issue

A classic means of muddying the waters is to employ straw man arguments, in which the point at issue is changed to one more easily defended or better suited to a particular interest. Politicians are adept at doing this, dodging hard questions with statements like "the real issue is" or "what's important to people is".

Deniers of climate science often change the issue from global warming to whether or not consensus is grounds for acceptance (it alone is not, of course), or focus on whether a particular person is credible rather than discuss the literature at large.

The anti-vaccine lobby talks about "choice" rather than efficacy of health care.Young earth creationists talk about the right to express all views rather than engage with the science. Politicians talk about anything except the question they were asked.

The third imperative, therefore, is to be very clear as to what the article or interview is about and stick to that topic. Moving off topic negates the presence of the experts (the desired effect) and gives unsubstantiated claims prominence.

The impartiality checklist

The best method of dealing with cranks, conspiracy theorists, ideologues and those with a vested interest in a particular outcome is the best method for science reporting in general:

  • insist on expertise
  • recognise where the burden of proof sits
  • stay focused on the point at issue.

If the media sticks to these three simple rules when covering science issues, impartiality and balance can be justifiably asserted.

Correction: This article was amended on July 17, 2014 to include a report of the BBC's denial that a climate change sceptic was banned from the public broadcaster.

Explore further: Climate scientists want to interact more directly with the public

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

On global warming, settled science and George Brandis

Apr 23, 2014

The Australian Attorney General, Senator George Brandis is no stranger to controversy. His statement in parliament that "people do have a right to be bigots" rapidly gained him notoriety, and it isn't hard to understand why ...

Climate change at the movies

Jun 03, 2014

Research published in the International Journal of Sustainable Development suggests that purportedly entertaining films that feature global warming and climate change can affect public understanding. But films are often ...

Recommended for you

All together now – three evolutionary perks of singing

13 hours ago

We're enjoying the one time of year when protests of "I can't sing!" are laid aside and we sing carols with others. For some this is a once-a-year special event; the rest of the year is left to the professionals ...

We're simply having an analogue Christmas time

Dec 23, 2014

The British Christmas that Charles Dickens serves up to us is rich in food and warmth, two things that in his day were often thinly stretched throughout the year in many homes. These days, for most of the y ...

User comments : 251

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (18) Jul 17, 2014
The video included in the article is one of the best points I have ever seen made against the global warming deniers

It is a comedic sketch, but absolutely true

I noticed a lot of the above tactics in use by other pseudoscience like eu as well
especially the straw man and repetitive blatant fallacies trying to establish a truth or gain validity through repetition.
Egleton
2.6 / 5 (14) Jul 17, 2014
On the contrary sir. It is only by relentless repitition that the left brain yields its set-in-stone model of Reality. Even then most hold their hard won, but unfortunate models, to the grave. I offer you Dr Iain McGilchrist as support.
https://www.youtu...pyDDfcfQ
This willful blindness is a crippling phychosis of first class brains. They consider their Opinions to be superior to Reality itself. And the rest of humanity suffers the consequences.
Pexeso
1.9 / 5 (17) Jul 17, 2014
False balance can also be created by assuming that a person from outside the field (a non-expert) will somehow have a perspective that will shed light on an issue, that the real expert is too "caught up in the details" to be objective.
At least four articles contradict with this view explicitly (1, 2, 3, 4). To be understood correctly, most of laymen are really uninformed and they have nothing to add to the solution of the problem - but the really groundbreaking ideas were often proposed just with outsiders.
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (25) Jul 17, 2014
This story just confirms the cultist behavior of the AGW Cult. Silence then burn the heretics.
Pexeso
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 17, 2014
Now we can just think about ways, which would allow us to recognize the situations, when the chicken has really found its corn from much more common situations, when the dumb people just propose their dumb ideas. As you may expect, the famous but schematic crackpot/anticrackpot index don't actually work here.
Pexeso
1.9 / 5 (18) Jul 17, 2014
Silence then burn the heretics.
Yep, this is a good point. Such an acceptation curve could be really useful for recognition of insightful ideas.
Arthur Schopenhauer: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident
So when we've met with first two stages of acceptation of some idea already, we can be quite sure with this third one - well, from solely phenomenological perspective, which has its roots in social psychology. It implies, the people as a group are somehow unconsciously recognize the quality of ideas in advance, if they behave in this predictable way. So, why the people do behave so, when they face such an insightful ideas?
Pexeso
1.2 / 5 (14) Jul 17, 2014
Well, my answer it, it's geometrodynamics, i.e. the physics actually. We can recognize the heavyweight ideas in the same way, like the dense objects in space. The dense objects never merge smoothly, they do exhibit a kick before their merging. Whereas the trivial and not quite insightful ideas are merging with mainstream without problem.

But it still doesn't explain the question, how the people are able to act collectively, as if they would already recognize the quality of idea in advance, despite they're still dismissing it individually. If you can answer it, you will actually understand of both the behavior of massive bodies, both the behavior of large social group. Try to propose some common answer - now.
julianpenrod
2 / 5 (16) Jul 17, 2014
Many don't realize how much the swindler behaves like a lunatic. Constant lies, as the swindler promotes their scam, inconsistent statements as the swindler refuses to other points of view the methodologies or reasoning that can be twisted to push their own point.
Among other things, there is no balance when it comes to reportage of "science"! There are competing views on even things like "evolution" and "relativity"! It is testament to the synergistic interplay between the connived "news" and the roaring imbeciles who like to play better than everyone else by being devoted to "science" that the technique of "if it isn't reported, it doesn't exist" has worked so well. How many people are on medication today to handle damage to their health trusting the only "news" on nutrition provided during the Eighties?
And note the about face on contradicting the "established view". How can they legitimately treat, say, Galileo as a hero now?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (21) Jul 17, 2014
"Deniers of climate science often change the issue from global warming to whether or not consensus is grounds for acceptance (it alone is not, of course), or focus on whether a particular person is credible rather than discuss the literature at large."

Too bad this article couldn't put aside their bias.
It is NOT the skeptics of AGW that promote consensus or attack credibility.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (21) Jul 17, 2014
Were I to propose an idea free of testing or argument, I could not reasonably expect my idea to be as credible as those subject to rigorous experimentation and collaborative review.

Oh boy..That should hit home with quite a number of people on this site..*cough*JVK, cantdrive, Zephyr, RegMundy, et. al.*cough*

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

I think I'm gonna just post this line whenever the above mentioned nutjobs pull out their pet theories (or some religious nutjob posts his views).
Dr_toad
Jul 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dr_toad
Jul 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 17, 2014
Your credibility can't stand even cursory inspection.

What's an Article 15 called in the Navy, poser?


Uh..An Article 15...? Navy is subject to same UCMJ qualifications as all the other branches.
I know they CALL it something else (not going to ruin the surprise for anyone else, tho).
DoieaS
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2014
Were I to propose an idea free of testing or argument, I could not reasonably expect my idea to be as credible as those subject to rigorous experimentation and collaborative review
If I cannot accept or dismiss some idea from occupational reasons, then its ignorance is the best approach, how to deal with it. And the pretending, such an idea has no actual merit, i.e. argumentative and/or experimental support is the easiest way, how to substantiate such an ignorance. For example the opponents of cold fusion are very inventive in proposal of reasons, why to ignore all these thousands of publications about it...
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2014
Your credibility can't stand even cursory inspection.

What's an Article 15 called in the Navy, poser?


Uh..An Article 15...? Navy is subject to same UCMJ qualifications as all the other branches.
I know they CALL it something else (not going to ruin the surprise for anyone else, tho).


It's call the . Oops, I almost ruin it
Dr_toad
Jul 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
julianpenrod
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 17, 2014
Defenders of the lie often put up poses of "support for scrupulous reasoning", to avoid actually addressing their deceitful claims and to impress their target audience, the imbeciles.
Supporters of the lie machine of "science" have no small number of these quips.
"You can't prove a negative". In that way, they declare God is not present but weasel around proving it. It also avoids the fact that all negative statements can be rephrased as positives.
Carl Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Thus, by declaring that evidence is "not extraordinary enough", the liars get around ignoring what they don't want those they see as "beasts of burden" to know. A single hair with right handed life molecules would prove alien life without being extraordinary, but the quislings would then say, "If it proves something extraordinary, then it is automatically extraordinary."
julianpenrod
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 17, 2014
And Hitchens' "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" flies in the face of "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Even if the other side didn't prove their case, you still have to prove yours! With most equipment built so it won't record phenomena the New World Order wants to deny and Hitchens' paean to shiftlessness, the liars of "science" seem to think they can enslave mankind.
Dr_toad
Jul 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 17, 2014
"The increasingly likely outcome for an historically weak solar cycle continues the recent downward trend in sunspot cycle strength that began over twenty years ago during solar cycle 22. If this trend continues for the next couple of cycles, then there would likely be more talk of another "grand minimum" for the sun. Some solar scientists are already predicting that the next solar cycle, #25, will be even weaker than this current one. However, it is just too early for high confidence in these predictions since some solar scientists believe that the best predictor of future solar cycle strength involves activity at the sun's poles during a solar minimum and the next solar minimum is still likely several years away. "
http://thesiweath...century/
peter_trypsteen
5 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2014
to the most basic ideas of a liberal education

Leave politics out of this point!

There is no such thing as liberal type of education, there is just education.
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 17, 2014
And pithy bromides like Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" call for examination to avoid their being accepted as legitimate. Too many "science" devotees give such as Sagan prophet status, saying what he says must be accepted without verification. Like his saying calculators should be in kindergartens because "calculators are the mathematical equivalent on written language".
Note, Sagan never said what makes evidence "extraordinary". Evidence is evidence. But scammers could use that to dismiss something they don't want the "rank and file" to know about by claiming "the evidence wasn't 'extraordinary'". The gullible will believe them, And if they want to accept a claim, then they will automatically declare the evidence "extraordinary", because it "proved an extraordinary claim".
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 17, 2014
Hum Bill Nye the Science guy...... Al Gore....... and basically everyone else that claims the science is settled that the Earth has a fever while it is cooling.

Progressives always want to ban the other side.

As schools have been run by liberal union teachers for the last 30+ years and have been teaching liberal theology on the Environment, Evolution, technology, and math, ask yourself this question, why has science, technology, and science scores have gone down?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2014
"Good news for penguin fans. The global population of penguins has boomed in the last 20 years, despite warnings from environmentalists that penguin numbers would dwindle as global warming melted the polar ice caps."
http://dailycalle...g-fears/
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 17, 2014
"Nearly 120 wind turbines catch fire each year – ten times the number reported by the industry – according to new research. The figures show that fires are the second biggest cause of accidents in wind turbines, after blade failure."
"Dr Guillermo Rein of Imperial College said: "Fires are a problem for the industry, impacting on energy production, economic output and emitting toxic fumes.

"This could cast a shadow over the industry's green credentials. "
http://www.breitb...-Thought
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2014
Freethinking
and basically everyone else that claims the science is settled that the Earth has a fever while it is cooling.


Strange how people can make stuff up - and never need to provide a source of course - guess that is what free thinkers do!

http://phys.org/n...ate.html
Pexeso
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 18, 2014
This study fits the above topic quite well: The wisdom of crowds breaks down when people are biased. Now researchers have discovered a simple method of removing this bias–just listen to the most confident. Do I appear confident enough? Do the people who just downvote angrily without arguments appear self-confident? Isn't it just their ego, which appears threatened by now?
Pexeso
2.2 / 5 (12) Jul 18, 2014
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 18, 2014
Pexeso: Really, a blank post? Any reason why"
Pexeso
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 18, 2014
Simply a mistake... You may think, I just gave you a chance to upvote me at least once... As you can see, you didn't utilize it anyway...

The history just repeat itself - when the Galileo announced the switch of geocentric model into heliocentric one, most of common religious people were upset with it in the same way, like the proponents of Holy Church. Only few Illuminati living and acting in diaspora did appreciate it. If I could formalize this insight, I would just paraphraze Jonathan Swift: "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

I don't consider myself neither extraordinarily smart, neither stupid - but I think, the memo isn't actually about person which proposed the new insight, but about insight itself. When some new truth emerges, you may recognize it in the way, it will get opposed from all sides the more, the more universal it really is. So it could serve as another acceptation criterion.
freethinking
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 18, 2014
The new truth is that AGW isn't. But the cult of the AGW is fighting tooth and nail to promote it.

But what is truth to progressives? Just something to destroy.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2014
Seems to be a problem with balance in the above article. Note how all "scientific" examples in this article are "settled". Reality couldn't be further from the truth.
COCO
1 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2014
is it true there is a movement afoot to slot climatology twixt astrology and alchemy until we see some/any proof ? - "consensus science" seems like a good thing - like religion until it takes hold.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 18, 2014
@ freethinking
But what is truth to progressives? Just something to destroy.


Truth is something that you, and Tegiri, and antigoracle think it is funny to play with. You claim that there is no warming - you were presented with evidence to the contrary - you double down. Sickening.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (9) Jul 18, 2014
When some new truth emerges, you may recognize it in the way, it will get opposed from all sides the more, the more universal it really is. So it could serve as another acceptation criterion.

Very nicely stated, although one thing needs to be added: religion. In the past it has always been religion labeling heretics, but now it's the science community doing it. What's that say about modern science?
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 18, 2014
What's that say about modern science?


I would say that says that modern science has evolved a great deal since the days of - say - Galileo. We have learned much in the past couple of hundred years - and of course have much left to learn. I support the use of the scientific process - that is the dependence on evidence, and repeatability for deciding what we believe is true. I think that it is appropriate for the science community (and those of us on the periphery) - to be frustrated with the anti science folks.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2014
What's that say about modern science?


I would say that says that modern science has evolved a great deal since the days of - say - Galileo. We have learned much in the past couple of hundred years - and of course have much left to learn. I support the use of the scientific process - that is the dependence on evidence, and repeatability for deciding what we believe is true. I think that it is appropriate for the science community (and those of us on the periphery) - to be frustrated with the anti science folks.


Strange, be careful with what Scroofy is saying. He says:

In the past it has always been religion labeling heretics


Implying that we label folks who don't understand science as heretics instead of really our just realizing their ignorance. There is no pitchfork and torch parade against Scroofy. Instead, we try to help him understand until he pitches a fit and then we just make fun of him. I think we all try first then lose our tempers.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 18, 2014
to be frustrated with the anti science folks.

And too many of those call themselves scientists.

"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Max Planck"
If scientists were as perfect as asserted by many here, Planck would never have made this comment and Barry Marshal would never have won the Nobel Prize.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 18, 2014
And too many of those call themselves scientists.


So how do YOU decide who is a scientist, and who is not?

Scroofinator - let me explain what I am talking about a little further. I think this stuff is serious.

Look at this article published today on physorg - http://medicalxpr...ine.html

Pretty hopefull right? - especially for people who have cancer. Now science is additive - right? Do you understand that? Progress is generally incremental. Scientists network - communicate with each other - and build our understanding of the universe we live in. My Dad died of cancer - because the science had not evolved far enough to save him. I hope that my kids don't have to see their Dad go the same way. Just depends how fast the science progresses. Scientists of course must have some system for validating truth - Otherwis we all follow the dudes who think that rubbing crystals on yourself will cure cancer (cont).
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 18, 2014
So - if demanding that you follow the scientific method is a problem - and you don't approve of the requirement for evidence, repeatability, etc - that is of course your prerogative. I have trouble understanding the need of folks like you and Ryggy to disrupt the forward progress of our species. Maybe you don't care if people die of cancer, or we cock up the climate, or we don't develop future generations of fuel systems, and transportation, and medicine. All of those things depend on the scientific process.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 18, 2014
we cock up the climate

Where is the data?

Describe how the scientific method is applied to validate AGW theory.
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2014
Where is the data?


Right here Ryggy - I can show you plenty more data if you are interested.

http://www.accuwe...-1/32757
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2014
and of course have much left to learn

In this we agree, although it's sad it was just an afterthought to how much you think we already know...

I think we all try first then lose our tempers.

Your spot on with that one Thermo. BTW, have you figured out how you're going to respond to my observations on the cloud chamber?

strangedays
be careful what you wish for in the "vaccine", the same PARASITE was not long ago on our list of things the media says we should worry about:
http://phys.org/n...470.html

you and Ryggy to disrupt the forward progress of our species

First, don't label me with the book salesman. I'm in it for knowledge, not profit. Second, who does more for a civilization: the yes man that believes everything he's told, even when there's unexplained questions, or the man who challenges these questions?
Maybe you don't care if people die of cancer

Are you serious with this? We've all lost someone to cancer, don't be so naive
strangedays
3.8 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2014
Are you serious with this? We've all lost someone to cancer, don't be so naive


Yes - I'm very serious about this. My response to having lost someone to cancer - is to put my hope behind the scientific process - that is allowing us to make progress on so many fronts - including cancer. It is a race against time for me - and anti science people are slowing us down - as are the religionists, and also the militarists - who are happy to see us have a shitty education system, and a hideously wasteful military.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2014
be careful what you wish for in the "vaccine", the same PARASITE was not long ago on our list of things the media says we should worry about:


So you don't think we should do science - and explore our universe. Then you wonder why I label you with the book salesman. Two anti-science drones - who spend their lives disparaging science - on a science web site. Seems pretty f**cked up to me. I am in favor of science and technology - I doubt that I am on the right side of what aubry de Grey calls the event horizon - but someone is on the right side of that line - perhaps my kids - perhaps theirs - it is a race against time.

I read an article and see this line -

"Cancer immunotherapy using cps holds incredible promise for creating beneficial new cancer treatments and cancer vaccines," said Bzik."

You say 'be careful what you wish for'. I see a big difference between those two attitudes.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2014
Scoofy:
Your spot on with that one Thermo. BTW, have you figured out how you're going to respond to my observations on the cloud chamber?


Sorry Scoffy. Can you give me the link for that location again? I have to say I have lost the link.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2014
First, don't label me with the book salesman. I'm in it for knowledge, not profit
@scroof
1- are you mistaking rygg for reg mundy? 2- if you are in it for knowledge, why would you ignore empirical data shared with you for a creationist geological idea? in fact... why ignore reams of empirical data for a gut hunch which is disproved in the data?
Second, who does more for a civilization: the yes man that believes everything he's told, even when there's unexplained questions, or the man who challenges these questions?
Strawman argument: this is NOT the case with scientific empirical evidence... only with your personal acceptance of it. Just because you would prefer to accept a faith, or a contrary POV while ignoring empirical evidence does not mean that you offer intelligent argument, nor does it justify your motivations. The man who challenges is only beneficial when said individual is educated enough to comprehend the data in front of him.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2014
In the past it has always been religion labeling heretics, but now it's the science community doing it. What's that say about modern science?
the funniest thing about the quoted comment, as well as some of the other posts here: they want their POV out there, and they want equal status for it, even though there is NO empirical data supporting it.
Which is better: empirical evidence or conjecture? Apparently, some here cannot differentiate the two
When a view is not mainstream, say that scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the public, the burden of proof sits with those promoting that view.
ahem- hey Zeph! did you read that part?

Also - what has been proven debunked with empirical data must have BETTER (& more) empirical data supporting its reinstatement, NOT just conjecture, posts to a blog, or someone saying that modern physics doesn't understand (or conspiracy to ignore/delete)

THIS is the issue with most posters here:
NO EVIDENCE/EMPIRICAL DATA!
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2014
Also - what has been proven debunked with empirical data must have BETTER (& more) empirical data supporting its reinstatement, NOT just conjecture, posts to a blog, or someone saying that modern physics doesn't understand (or conspiracy to ignore/delete)
It ALSO must have empirical data PROVING WHY the former tests have been wrong or tested the way that they did proving something wrong.

You can't just "claim" that something is correct when disproved by science without reams of supporting evidence... this is the problem with debunked pseudoscience (posted here frequently)

Just because you THINK there is some legitimacy to your faith, does NOT mean that there IS legitimate empirical evidence

And to those who IGNORE empirical evidence for their own reasons, like climate change deniers or those who don't like having their faith challenged (see EU, AW, kalopin, aliens built pyramids, etc) ... just because YOU ignore it, doesn't mean it isn't really still there.
DoieaS
1 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2014
THIS is the issue with most posters here:NO EVIDENCE/EMPIRICAL DATA!
Only for half-educated ignorants, who are twaddling bellow mainstream articles only. The alternative views are supported with many empirical data and evidence: Counterexamples to Relativity, The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang. If the string theorists would have such a number of evidence, they would be really happy.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2014
My response to having lost someone to cancer - is to put my hope behind the scientific process

They would likely still be dead.
Barry Marshal discovered he could treat ulcers with anti-biotics. How many suffered or died while the 'scientific' process was followed.
How well did the 'scientific' process work declaring saturated fat causes heart disease? Not well.
Warmest Spring on Record

This is weather. What does this have to do with AGW?
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2014
Ryggy
This is weather. What does this have to do with AGW?


Please enlighten us as to the difference between weather and climate.

Having done that - and based on your definition - please tell us how the graph on this site - which is reporting the data that I gave to you - that 2014 was the hottest spring on record - is weather, and not climate.

http://thinkprogr...-record/
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2014
Barry Marshal discovered he could treat ulcers with anti-biotics. How many suffered or died while the 'scientific' process was followed.


Here is a quote for you Ryggy

For their work on H. pylori, Marshall and Warren shared a 2005 Nobel Prize. Today the standard of care for an ulcer is treatment with an antibiotic. And stomach cancer—once one of the most common forms of malignancy—is almost gone from the Western world.


So I guess the scientific process does work doesn't it? And if you hate the scientific process - I guess if you got an ulcer - you would not treat it with antibiotics - because two doctors - who had been trained in the scientific process - used the scientific process to reveal a treatment for a serious medical affliction - and they got a nobel prize for it - awarded by the scientific community - all part of the scientific process. Shit you say stupid things.

http://discoverma...-mystery
Dr_toad
Jul 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2014
the hottest spring on record

How long is the record?
What does this have to do with human caused global warming?
So I guess the scientific process does work doesn't it?

Yes, real science does work.
Why aren't you concerned it took so long for their work to be recognized?
People die waiting for 'science' to catch up.
Also, traditional 'science' assumes all humans are identical. How can science address the uniqueness of every human?
Dr_toad
Jul 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2014
That's almost rational. Outstanding job.

What is an Article 15 called in the USN?


Inquiring minds want to know.

If you MUST know, it's called a - t34 4t9 4gtklj gw...
Sorry - magnetic interference of some sort....
strangedays
4 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2014
Why aren't you concerned it took so long for their work to be recognized?


Who said I am not? I am well aware that many breakthroughs in science take much longer than they need - due to the conservative nature of the science community. That does not invalidate the process.

Yes, real science does work.


Glad you finally agree. Who gets to decide what is 'real science?' You, or the scientific process? (which is often very conservative - resistant to change - but works in the long term). As pointed out above - your attempt at criticizing the scientific process - actually turns out to be a solid endorsement of said process.

Curious - why do you keep making a complete fool of yourself - no matter how many times you are shown to post total bullshit - you just keep right on humiliating yourself. Is it some kind of masochistic complex?

strangedays
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2014
How long is the record?


You cant even read a graph? 1890 to present - gives you about 124 years - is that long enough for you?

What does this have to do with human caused global warming?


Well see - the theory says that as green house gasses (primarily C02) build in the atmosphere, the earth's temperature will increase. And guess what? Observations match the theory. Here is a quick discussion for you -

http://www.ucsusa...faq.html

Pretty sad when we have to go all the way back to basics - to explain the process to you - and yet you keep right on wanting to comment on this site - as if you have any understanding of these issues.

Scroofinator
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2014
is to put my hope behind the scientific process

Well that's just fine and dandy, but what good does that do when it takes decades to accomplish something? Also, it's a little concerning health to you depends on what science can cure. You realize diet and good exercise is the best way to prevent most diseases. What were the cancer rates before processed food became a staple of the American diet?
So you don't think we should do science - and explore our universe

Another one of your conclusion jumping absurdities. Why would I be on a physics website debating SCIENCE if it didn't want science? I don't really know where you come up with this shit, it's certainly not from anything I've said, it's just from your twisted opinions.
You say 'be careful what you wish for'. I see a big difference between those two attitudes.

Yes, temper your expectations when new research comes out, period. Especially regarding the "cure for cancer"
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2014
Well that's just fine and dandy, but what good does that do when it takes decades to accomplish something?


I would say that the main reason that science is progressing so much more slowly than it could - is the resistance being put up by the anti science lobby. Our education system here in the states really sucks - and many school districts are fighting science curriculum tooth and nail. HOWEVER - it is important to have a basis for what you decide is truth. For me - that is an evidence based approach. Rather than constantly attacking the science community - I am interested in hearing what they have to say. Your constant attack of the science community is where I get my negative view of your anti science attitude.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2014
I would say that the main reason that science is progressing so much more slowly than it could - is the resistance being put up by the anti science lobby

There you go, point the blame somewhere else, that will get a lot accomplished...

I'm tired of your baseless insinuations that I'm somehow "anti-science". It's not the method I'm against, it's the execution.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2014
is the resistance being put up by the anti science lobby.

It was fellow 'scientists' that held up the ulcer cure.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2014
Observations match the theory

What is the 'theory'? The theory is THE CLIMATE MODEL. CO2 'forcings' are 'adjusted' to match observations. But ALL real world variables are not known.
It's the same reason medical and nutrition research fails so often. All variables are not known and no controlled experiments can be performed.

CO2 levels don't match the MWP.
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2014
It was fellow 'scientists' that held up the ulcer cure


So what? - it was the process of science that developed the cure - and fellow scientists who awarded the Nobel prize. It was scientists who fudged the data - and told us all that smoking does not cause cancer - but the process wins out in the end - right?

Why don't you answer the question about why you insist on continuing to humiliate yourself?
Dr_toad
Jul 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2014
So what?

That process killed someone you care about.
So what?
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2014
That process killed someone you care about.


NO - the process developed a cure for a problem that has been plaguing humans for many many years. So it is the overall process that I support - the process that took our life expectancy from 40 years of age - to 80 years of age in about 100 years. Did your vudu do that Ryggy? Did your faith healing do that Ryggy? Did your prayer therapy do that Ryggy? See the point? - The process overall is successful - and I think there is much more low hanging fruit to work on in terms of opposing the resistance to change - than the fact that many in the medical profession are very conservative - and have to be slapped up side the head sometimes. Those same conservative scientists developed antibiotics. Did you?

Now please answer the question...
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2014
Scoofinator
I'm tired of your baseless insinuations that I'm somehow "anti-science".


Then stop giving out reasons to think that you are anti science. Here is one example. On another thread - you have proposed that magnetism is responsible for global warming - not green house gasses. Now that shows that you do not understand the process of science. That type of issue is not adjudicated on the comments section of a web site. If you want to research that topic - like I said - the first step is a literature search - to see who is already working on that issue. Then you have to develop a research protocol - to test your hypothesis. Yeah - I think you are anti science - you want to just pull stuff out of the air - and claim that you know better than the science community.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2014
Those same conservative scientists developed antibiotics.

That are now failing to be effective.
I guess they forgot how life adapts.
strangedays
4 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2014
That are now failing to be effective


Oh - so your opinion is that because infectious diseases present tough challenges - we should not be studying them - and continue to develop the new therapies we need adapt with them. Your ignorance does not surprise me.

Now please answer the question.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2014
the first step is a literature search

The first step is observation and asking 'why?'.

It's interesting that the few of us who are critical of AGW are promptly accused of being anti-science.
Sounds just like the thought police in any socialist state.
Ever since the 'progressives' have been in charge at universities, thought police have attempted to control speech, thought, science, etc. using intimidation.
What are they afraid of?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2014
"Speech-zone rules require students to ask permission to do such things as hand out leaflets, collect petition signatures, or give speeches; demand that students apply days or weeks in advance; and corral their activities in tiny areas of the campus, often away from the main pathways and quads. The rules aren't about noise or crowds. They aren't about disrupting classes. They're about what you can do in public outdoor areas, and they apply even to just one or two people engaged in unobtrusive activities. They significantly infringe on students' constitutionally protected speech."
"Higher education exists to advance and transmit knowledge, and learning requires disagreement and argument. Even the most vocational curriculum -- accounting, physical therapy, civil engineering, graphic design -- represents knowledge accumulated through trial and error, experimentation and criticism. That open-ended process isn't easy and it often isn't comfortable."
http://www.bloomb...icles/20
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2014
"Why don't we mention Hooke in the same breath as Newton? Blame the latter for a fraction of this. Newton was an incredibly jealous and vindictive man, who liked to destroy those with whom he disagreed. "
http://www.realcl...oke.html

Sounds just like today. Vindictive scientists attacking their opponents.
Dr_toad
Jul 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2014
he first step is a literature search

If you take Richard Feynman's advice, this is not the first step.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2014
"More important than any new treatment technique is simply making more doctors familiar with necrotizing fasciitis, so that it can be diagnosed early, said Dr. Stanley Deresinski, a Stanford infectious disease specialist. Crew's technique, he added, "is not too dissimilar from the way many wounds are handled now."

"It looks like a pretty effective antiseptic solution that would maybe add some benefit. But I would like to see somebody do clinical trial with it," Deresinski said. "Of course, this kind of thing, it's next to impossible to do clinical trials because the cases are so infrequent.""
http://www.sfgate...8342.php
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2014
"Joseph Brasco, MD, spent a year and a half convincing the board of directors of the Huntsville (Ala.) Center for Colon and Digestive Disease to allow him to perform fecal microbiota transplant in the center.

The procedure, which involves transplanting a healthy fecal sample from a donor into the GI tract of a patient suffering from recurrent C. difficile infections, is gaining popularity, but Dr. Brasco says the idea of transplanting poop has yet to be completely accepted. "You wouldn't have even thought about doing this a year and a half or two years ago," he says. "More and more people are doing it now.""
"Dr. Brasco has seen articles about FMT dating back to the 1960s but says the procedure fell out of favor when antibiotics became more mainstream. However, the nature of the C. difficile infection itself has changed, and more strains of the bacteria are resistant to antibiotics.
http://www.becker...crobiot"
Dr_toad
Jul 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
On another thread - you have proposed that magnetism is responsible for global warming - not green house gasses.

Wrong, I have proposed that magnetic fields are a greater influence than we think. I've never once said GHGs weren't influencing weather, I just don't put all the blame on it. Read through it again, and all my other climate related posts if you want.
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
you want to just pull stuff out of the air.

I hardly see how I'm "pulling stuff" out of the air? My logic is sound, and my mind is open, which is more than can be said for your crew. Prove my ideas wrong if you can, and I'll accept it. In emperical data we trust.
- and claim that you know better than the science community

Nope, never said that one either. You guys jump to so many ridiculous conclusions it makes me think your all just fakes that don't give a shit either way, so you hop on the bandwagon for an easy ride. I guess trolls are lazy beasts
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 20, 2014
which is more than can be said for your crew.


Which 'crew' might that be? Pretty stupid comment there.

Whether you said that magnetism is the whole issue, or just 'I don't put all the blame on it' - is not the point. The point is the process. You said yourself that it is 'not the process that you object to, but the execution'. You clearly do not understand what I am talking about when I use the term evidentiary, or the term 'scientific process'. We don't get to make stuff up - and declare that it is now truth. Truth has pass the test of evidence. Look at your term 'I just don't put all the blame on it'. It doesn't matter what you or I decide is truth - there is a process. Maybe you don't care about the process. Big deal. The point is that when I am sick - I go to the doctor. No - that is not a perfect process. Doctors often get it wrong. But I still go to the doctor - because I understand, and support the process.
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 20, 2014
The first step is observation and asking 'why?'.


You are just being an idiot - and making a total fool of yourself. We are talking about Soofinator declaring that magnetism has more influence on the climate than science currently acknowledges. So the observation part has already been done. The first step in terms of developing a research project - is to do a literature search - to see what is currently being done on this issue - so there is an assumption that you already have a hypothesis - so your observation already has to have been done - if you already have a hypothesis - Right?

Shit you say stupid stuff.

You still did not answer the question - and I am not going to devote any more of my weekend - talking to someone who says such stupid - stupid shit.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2014
- so there is an assumption that you already have a hypothesis

Then it's not the first step, and its the most important step. A step that I see ignored in K-12 science fair directions.
Making observations, such as observing how some here get so upset they resort to vulgarity, helps to create the hypothesis the AGWism is more about faith than facts.
And it's understandable given the uncertainties to the inputs for THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL.
But why the anger and vitriol? I suggest world views are threatened. Socialists have a world view that man is superior and outside nature. Humans then have the power to affect nature and,more importantly, the power to 'fix', shape and direct nature. Data that shows humans are a part of nature, that are in nature and not more powerful than nature must impact egos and drive the emotional responses we see here.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
My logic is sound, and my mind is open, which is more than can be said for your crew. Prove my ideas wrong if you can, and I'll accept it. In emperical data we trust.
@scroof
you mean like the "sound logic" displayed here? http://phys.org/n...ics.html

You were given EMPIRICAL evidence in THAT thread but you could not bother to read the links... you wanted a nice, easy sound byte which proved you wrong (which you are asking for above as well) when it sometimes requires a little KNOWLEDGE and maybe some work to get to the TRUTH. essentially, you are too lazy to find it so you want someone else to work for you and give it to you the easy way.
I would suggest Google or another search engine, but again, you are too lazy to read up on the EMPIRICAL evidence... as PROVEN in the above link
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2014
it makes me think your all just fakes that don't give a shit either way, so you hop on the bandwagon for an easy ride. I guess trolls are lazy beasts
@scroog
first of all, its "you're", not "your" as you wrote above...

Secondly... regarding your comment about being a lazy beast, etc... to tell the truth, that is usually how we think of you, especially given your displays of ignorance, lack of ability (or laziness) to read, ignoring empirical data and the attempt to get a short sound byte out of a person when it required knowledge - which we tried to SHARE with you but you chose to IGNORE it!
for PROOF of that, see THIS LINK: http://phys.org/n...ics.html

you are correct. Trolls (especially like you) are lazy beasts. You proved that in the above link... and you continually prove (over and over again) it in your posted comments
strangedays
4 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2014
Then it's not the first step


In the context of the conversation I was having with scroofinator - the point I was making is that one does not get to just declare something (such as magnetism is more influential in climate change than science acknowledges) without supporting that position. A first step in constructing that support (called science) would be a literature search - to see what work is already out there. Like a stupid little child - you pick up on one statement - and want to create a whole distraction over that one little phrase.

But why the anger and vitriol?


I already explained that to you - but being that you have difficulty comprehending - I will do it again.

I lost my dad to cancer. My children may get to lose their dad to cancer one day. I have already had duel with prostate cancer. So science is the tool that is going to possibly prevent my children from having to bury their dad. Everyone else in the world is in the same boat. cont.
strangedays
4 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2014
cont. So science is the tool that is one day going to end all disease, develop new energy sources, power us around the universe, bring us immortality etc. You are not on board with that world view - that is up to you. My anger and vitriol are because I see people like you - spamming the internet with stupidity. I see a society that does not value education (the base of science) - but does value stupid stuff like religion, WWF, The Price is Right, Dr. Phil, Deepak Chopra, cold reading psychics, etc etc. Your stubborn, arrogant, ignorance - represents to me what is wrong in the world I live in - capiche?????
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2014
like I said - the first step is a literature search -

In science, it is important to be precise.
Now you say, "A first step....". Before you said, "THE first step..."

prevent my children from having to bury their dad.

You want to live longer than you children?
I lost my dad to cancer.

We have all lost friends and family for many reasons. Some have died because the FDA and other groupthink scientists have hamstrung science. But that doesn't seem to be of concern to you.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2014
But why the anger and vitriol?
@rygg
because you tend to make unsubstantiated personal conjecture unsupported by science or empirical data and then claim that because you have the right to freedom of speech that your opinion is every bit as valid as scientific fact. See your OWN comments like
how some here get so upset they resort to vulgarity
to which YOU PERSONALLY are the worst poster, calling people derogatory unsubstantiated names like "socialist" etc. Your faith is challenged, so you lash out with anger and vitriol, but you get offended when it is returned? WTF? typical TROLL comment
stupid stuff like religion, WWF, Deepak Chopra, cold reading psychics
@Strangedays
WAIT A MINUTE!!!! Those aren't REAL? lol

You hit the Ryg on the head. He puts value on fallacies but NOT empirical evidence!
and as such DESERVES to be treated with scorn and revulsion.

see above reply to you for more proof that he thinks unsubstantiated speech is equivalent to empirical evidence
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2014
But that doesn't seem to be of concern to you.
@ryg
personal conjecture not supported by evidence OR claims posted on this site

Your reply to Strange only reinforces what I said in my last post. You ASSUME that, because you have the right to freedom of speech, your internal musings are every bit as logical or substantiated as Empirical evidence to which SCIENCE MUST COMPLY WITH.

Are there problems with our overburdened bureaucratic systems? yes... but assigning blame to a poster and assuming feelings with no evidence present is just ASKING for vitriol and scorn

It is also the ONLY refuge of a TROLL, a poster with NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE which posts for the sake of seeing her posts in print.

it is YOU who provides proof of a "faith" without substantial argument or logical discourse.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2014
"Advocates of scientism today claim the sole mantle of rationality, frequently equating science with reason itself. Yet it seems the very antithesis of reason to insist that science can do what it cannot, or even that it has done what it demonstrably has not. As a scientist, I would never deny that scientific discoveries can have important implications for metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, and that everyone interested in these topics needs to be scientifically literate. But the claim that science and science alone can answer longstanding questions in these fields gives rise to countless problems."
"Continued insistence on the universal competence of science will serve only to undermine the credibility of science as a whole. The ultimate outcome will be an increase of radical skepticism that questions the ability of science to address even the questions legitimately within its sphere of competence. "
http://www.thenew...cientism
strangedays
4 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2014
Now you say, "A first step....". Before you said, "THE first step..."


Because I was simply making a point - the point being that if you want to contribute to scientific knowledge - it is important to do a literature search - and see what research is already out there - in other words educate yourself. In science - it is also important to understand context - and the argument being made. Like a little child - you want to debate minututia - and to avoid the central argument being made. And you don't understand the vitriol???

You want to live longer than you children?


I want to experience immortality - but understand that I was probably born too early to get to enjoy that one. It will certainly come one day. Maybe my kids will see it. I see people like you as one of the main causes of our progress being so slow - capiche????
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
"How about some examples of what might be called scientistic inferences? Below, while the premises are pro-science beliefs that may or may not be scientistic, the conclusions are scientistic beliefs that may or may not be overtly pro-science. "
"[Premise] Science is the greatest authority on human knowledge.
[Conclusion] If science says that consciousness does not exist, non-scientists should simply accept it."
"[P] Science provides the truth about reality while religions do not.
[C] The scientific worldview should be preferred to any religious worldview."
http://rationally...ief.html
strangedays
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2014
We have all lost friends and family for many reasons. Some have died because the FDA and other groupthink scientists have hamstrung science. But that doesn't seem to be of concern to you.


Any force that resists our progress is of concern to me. I certainly despise the FDA - and I believe that the government should not be in CONTROL of what treatments I choose for my own body. If we had a scientifically literate society - we would not need agents of control like the FDA - just sources of information to allow us to make our own educated decision. But we must prioritize - and religion and pseudoscience seem to me to be much bigger problems than the political manipulations of the FDA.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
"scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle."
http://www.thepub...03/1174/
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
The scientific worldview should be preferred to any religious worldview


Let me paraphrase that for you - 'I prefer the scientific worldview over any religious world view'

Science frees the mind to explore truth. Religion lies to children in order to deceive them - before they have developed the reasoning skills that would allow them to form their own independent world view. I believe Religion is morally repugnant - and I will work to communicate that perspective.
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2014
"scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle."

What is the alternative Ryggy? Make shit up? That is what Religion does. I will stick with an evidentiary based system thanks - far easier to justify - even if you believe it is arguing in a circle.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
I see people like you as one of the main causes of our progress being so slow - capiche????
@Strangedays
you can see by the above that ryg lives in his own little delusion which is supported by his own proclamations and no empirical evidence in any way shape or form...
Science frees the mind to explore truth. Religion lies to children in order to deceive them
He will not be able to comprehend this argument. I have tried to use it already... he actually believes that SCIENCE is some new religion!

Good luck convincing him otherwise.

Personally, I see RELIGION as being the worst invention of mankind... its purpose is for CONTROL of a few, or ONE, over large amounts of people or minds. There is NO other purpose for RELIGION other than CONTROL and SEGREGATION

for proof, see how many factions of x-tians there are.
segregated by their own personal belief in a religion to which they find a need to belong.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
If we had a scientifically literate society - we would not need agents of control like the FDA -

You don't support evolution?
Why wouldn't you support a world in which stupid people would not survive?
Why do you trust a govt agency has your best interests at heart?
Govt approved drugs or treatments don't grantee efficacy.
Govt inspected foods kill people.
A govt agency, the SEC, gave implicit approval of Bernie Madoff, which is victims trusted.
Trusting 'experts', especially govt 'experts' does not support educating society.

he actually believes that SCIENCE is some new religion!

It is to many here.
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2014
You don't support evolution?


What on earth does that mean. Evolution does not care if I support it or not. Evolution just is. You make no sense.

Why wouldn't you support a world in which stupid people would not survive?


What are you talking about? I have worked many years in the field of special education. We have evolved as a society beyond the survival of the smart. We are a compassionate society - that takes care of those who cannot take care of themselves. What on earth are you talking about.

Govt approved drugs or treatments don't grantee efficacy.


I agree - can you even read? I am against government control of what I put in my body. I am arguing in favor of an educated society - one in which we are capable of making our own choices - and do not need government agencies to decide for us. You cannot read!!!!
Dr_toad
Jul 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2014
@ Captainstumpy - You and I agree fully in terms of our understanding of religion - and also Ryggy's intransigence. I think I have to go play in the garden now - much to do....

Cheers mate.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2014
As limited as rygg is, I imagine that someone takes care of him too. Why is beyond me, unless he isn't a complete asshole in person. Very unlikely. Maybe he's just living on all his stored-up hatred?
@Dr Toad
left you a message on sciforums

Also... even though he may hate and be a real jerk here, there are some who overlook his acerbic nature to do a job that is more a calling than anything... much like firefighters. The nurses who care for him will do it because they care period. not because they care for him as an individual... As I have several nurses in the family, I can attest to this mental attitude. sucky pay for a hard job... but they do it for other reasons.
It is to many here.
see... rygg see's a world that is NOT substantiated by anything other than his own personal claims...

in most circles this is known as a DELUSION... a false sense of reality created by an internal desire or mental deficiency.
Cheers mate
@ strange

PEACE
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
What on earth does that mean. Evolution does not care if I support it or not. Evolution just is. You make no sense.

You believe people are so stupid they need a govt agency to tell them what to eat, drink and what medicine to take.

The FDA is ~100 years old. What did stupid people do before the FDA?

"Life is hard. It's even harder when you are stupid." John Wayne.

Why does strange want a govt agency to protect stupid people? If people are too stupid to not ingest poison, why do you want to protect them and perpetuate stupidity?

do not need government agencies to decide for us.

But you support the FDA?
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2014
But you support the FDA?


No I don't - you totally misunderstood my point. I do NOT support the FDA - here is the whole quote

"Any force that resists our progress is of concern to me. I certainly despise the FDA - and I believe that the government should not be in CONTROL of what treatments I choose for my own body. If we had a scientifically literate society - we would not need agents of control like the FDA - just sources of information to allow us to make our own educated decision. But we must prioritize - and religion and pseudoscience seem to me to be much bigger problems than the political manipulations of the FDA."

You are just so used to childishly cherry picking information - that you are not able to look at the whole argument.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
Ryggy - the government dictates that we vaccinate our children from infectious diseases - some of which are deadly. The reason for this requirement - is to protect the general public. Part of the problem here is ignorant religious people - who withhold medical treatment from their children - for religious reasons. Do you think the government should be involved in legislating medical treatment - for the protection of the wider society? At this point I do support such government involvement - because we have a lot of stupid people in the society - who do not listen to the experts regarding such issues.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2014
Part of the problem here is ignorant religious people

Jenny McCarthy is religious?
Do you think the government should be involved in legislating medical treatment

No. When the govt pays for the treatment, the govt decides when to kill people off rather than treat them. Just as they do in UK.
I do NOT support the FDA

Yes you do. Otherwise you would not rationalize its existence with "If we had a scientifically literate society", or your support govt coercive medial treatment.
because we have a lot of stupid people in the society - who do not listen to the experts regarding such issues.


So why is the govt encouraging unvaccinated immigrants into the country and forcing them to integrate them in our local schools?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2014
"Last month, 50 students and teachers at Lilburn Middle School in Gwinnett County, Ga., a suburb of Atlanta , tested positive for tuberculosis exposure, and four have been confirmed to have an active case of TB.. While that news may be shocking to most, it is nothing new. In October 2009, about 200 students at the county's Norcross High School underwent testing, after TB was discovered at the school.

Of course, Atlanta is a known 'sanctuary city' for illegal aliens."
http://www.examin...-disease
"A government-contracted security force threatened to arrest doctors and nurses if they divulged any information about the contagion threat at a refugee camp housing illegal alien children at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, sources say."
http://www.foxnew...-arrest/
Why do you trust the govt?
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2014
Yes you do. Otherwise you would not rationalize its existence with "If we had a scientifically literate society", or your support govt coercive medial treatment.


No I don't - you are just plain wrong. I do support the government's legislating the use of vaccinations - in line with the medical communities recommendations. I wish it did not have to be that way - and in a scientifically literate society - people would do the right thing. I have a hope that we may one day see that society - but sadly probably not in my life time. Our priorities have to change big time for that to happen - too many of your sort around - it is going to take centuries I fear.
Dr_toad
Jul 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2014
I wish it did not have to be that way - and in a scientifically literate society - people would do the right thing.


So you won't lobby to abolish the FDA.

There are myriad govt agencies to protect stupid people, yet stupid people abuse drugs, don't eat what's good for them...
Data and analysis shows the FDA and other agencies fail their stated missions. The rational, scientific decision is to abolish the FDA and the Regulatory State for the failure of their stated missions.
But they are quite successful at their unstated mission, control.
Based upon your support of the FDA and the Regulatory State, and their documented failures, you must support them for their unstated mission, control.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2014
Yes you do. Otherwise you would not rationalize its existence with "If we had a scientifically literate society", or your support govt coercive medial treatment.
@Ryggtard

So you support and believe in pedophilia ?

It is OBVIOUS that you do, since you constantly use and support the internet, which is the chosen most popular stalking mechanism for most pedo predators!
Given that you likely pay MONEY for an internet connection, that means, by YOUR OWN LOGIC USED HERE AGAINST STRANGE, that you financially support pedophiles, child pornography and any other illegal porn/drug related internet deals that happen.
Given YOUR LOGIC, it means that you are NO BETTER than the convicted pedophile because you just haven't been caught yet.
you MUST BE A PEDO because you don't constantly condemn it and argue for tighter restrictions on convicted child molesters

This is NOT MY LOGIC... I use sane logic

THIS IS YOUR OWN LOGIC TURNED AGAINST YOU
WHY dont you condemn pedo's???
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2014
Damn dude, you must be in some strange daze. Science isn't God, it can't
bring us immortality
so you won't
experience immortality
, no matter how much you believe in it. It can give us a much longer, more useful life, but nothing lasts forever. Your kind worries me, envying cylons and all...

Capn,
I can't believe you still remember that, I must have left quite the impression :) especially if you had to rant about it twice
So what if I'm skeptical of our geological (and societal) history, and the "proof" that we are supposed to believe.
We have different scientific beliefs, nobody can PROVE the other wrong, so why don't we just discuss our current topics at hand. But wait, I think that's why you wanted to bring up my discussing the Hydroplate theory, because your running out of gas on anything else. Prove me wrong, if you can.
Dr_toad
Jul 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2014
I can't believe you still remember that, I must have left quite the impression :) especially if you had to rant about it twice
@scroof
not a rant. proof.
also- it always baffles me when people IGNORE empirical evidence for the sake of a belief that is completely unsupported by anything BUT the persons faith in the belief
We have different scientific beliefs, nobody can PROVE the other wrong
had you read the links, you would have realised just how wrong you were
the Hydroplate theory, because your running out of gas on anything else. Prove me wrong, if you can
I DID prove you wrong. you refused to read the EMPIRICAL PROOF, and thus you were able to cling to your tenuous delusion for that much longer. See link for more details.

what I brought up was EMPIRICAL PROOF that you IGNORE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, to which you AGAIN ignored and posted simply proving my point with more evidence.
but being burnt is preventing you from seeing reality
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2014
why don't we just discuss our current topics at hand
@scroog
in the article
Were I to propose an idea free of testing or argument, I could not reasonably expect my idea to be as credible as those subject to rigorous experimentation and collaborative review. If such equality did exist then progress would be impossible, since progress is marked by the testing and rejection of ideas.
THIS is the reason that your Hydroplate faith FAILS in SCIENCE. It has NO empirical evidence supporting it!
HAD you read the links provided, you would have realised this... and you would also realise that you were proven WRONG in your belief, as well as made to look blatantly stupid because you refused to even read the link and learn WHY you were wrong

THIS is EXTREMELY relevant to this article... You pose a faith as though it were factual and then try to support it with links to BS sites-it is NOT science, or reality

it's PSEUDOSCIENCE
but you're so burnt you can't see reality
your EPIC failure
sennekuyl
5 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2014
And Hitchens' "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" flies in the face of "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Even if the other side didn't prove their case, you still have to prove yours! With most equipment built so it won't record phenomena the New World Order wants to deny and Hitchens' paean to shiftlessness, the liars of "science" seem to think they can enslave mankind.


Do you keep looking for your keys in places you have thoroughly discredited their existence as occupying? Y'know, evidence. It is a bloody tautology. If it isn't there the absence is evidence it isn't there.

You can only say the keys were there when 'there' is ambiguous and ill defined.

As for the conspiracy of equipment built to ignore phenomena... That is probably the easiest to demonstrate the truth. Build equipment that does record the requisite phenomenon.
yep
1 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2014
When empirical evidence is based in a false priori it is pseudoscience, but since this evidence is the excepted view of reality that faith in the science is unwavering because we have proof after all. Unfortunately many of you are unwilling to learn about the history of science and prefer to be the gate keepers of these current dogmas, so keep on being the high priests, feeling righteous in how much smarter you are. Time will show as it has before how ignorant we truly are.
strangedays
4 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2014
Damn dude, you must be in some strange daze. Science isn't God, it can't

bring us immortality


Damn dude - I disagree with you when you state that science cannot bring us immortality. Probably not in my life time - but I personally have no doubt that - if we do not annihilate ourselves with stupidity (nuclear war, or climate destruction) that we will one day accomplish immortality.

A question - do you believe that humans will still be here 1 million years from now? If you acknowledge that as a possibility - then surely you would acknowledge that in that 1 million year time period - we will cure all diseases, learn to regrow organs, learn to download the mind, populate at least near earth section of the universe, etc. If you don't acknowledge these possibilities - then we just have a fundamental disagreement. I do fully believe that we will one day accomplish immortality. I will not get the pleasure of seeing that day - time is not on my side.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2014
@ Dr_toad

You have scientific beliefs? God damn, you really don't get anything at all.


Dr_toad just nailed it. Scoofinator - do you understand what Dr. Toad just pointed out to you?
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2014
Ryggy -
Why do you trust the govt?


We actually agree in our disdain for government. I am fully aware of the ineffectiveness, and often corruption of government.

In giving examples of the failure of government - you could have mentioned the billion dollars pissed away by the U.S. Airforce - http://jonathantu...failure/

Or perhaps the School of the Americas - where the U.S. government has much blood on it's hands.

Instead you pick on a temporary camp that is set up to deal with a humanitarian crisis involving children. Discussing the origins of that humanitarian crisis would take volumes of books - and the U.S. government has it's hands all over that one. It is interesting to note where you turn to find your examples of bad government.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2014
@ yep
Unfortunately many of you are unwilling to learn about the history of science and prefer to be the gate keepers of these current dogmas, so keep on being the high priests, feeling righteous in how much smarter you are. Time will show as it has before how ignorant we truly are.


Perhaps I misread you - but it sounds to me as if you are expressing the exact attitude you are trying to critique. Which 'dogmas' are you referring to - and who are you referring to as 'high priests?'
strangedays
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2014
scoofinator
Your kind worries me, envying cylons and all...


Hey - to each their own. Just curious - why would 'my kind' - worry you? What kind of a threat do you think I pose to you?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2014
you could have mentioned the billion dollars pissed away by the U.S. Airforce

The Air Force does not control the food or medicines I may want to consume.

The Air Force does have a legitimate govt function, protecting private property.

strange wants the govt to tell stupid people how to live, to control the lives of others, but does not want the govt to protect the individual's rights to life, liberty and property.

What kind of a threat do you think I pose to you?

You would be the type to support eugenics, human experiments to obtain immortality.

BTW, how will the FDA control genetic treatments? Treatments are supposed pass numerous experimental testing regimes, but if a treatment is unique to an individual, how can the FDA approve it?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2014
strangedays
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2014
The Air Force does not control the food or medicines I may want to consume.


Completely off the point. Government has a propensity to become corrupt, and ineffective. I am as opposed to that corruption and ineffectiveness as any one. I just don't pick on a humanitarian crisis involving little children to make that point. I think that says a lot about you.
strangedays
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2014
You would be the type to support eugenics, human experiments to obtain immortality.


I think I exhibit a great deal more fairness, and compassion in my approach to life - and I think that is represented in my comments - much more than you. You show no compassion for the plight of the poor children caught in the midst of a sickening crisis - that the U.S. government was very involved in creating. I would not support eugenics - you are being a stupid little prick making that comment. I guess I would support experiments to obtain immortality, just as I support experiments to cure cancer. We have ethics guidelines to determine how we do such experiments. Are you opposed to medical research?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2014
Completely off the point.

No, it is precisely the point you are ignoring.
Govt has a legitimate role, protecting private property.
Govt has no legitimate role dictating what people should eat or drink, what light bulbs to use, how their toilets should flush, ...

We have ethics guidelines

If not for GW Bush, babies would now be harvested for stem cell research.
100 years ago, eugenics was ethical and it is considered ethical today to murder babies before they are born.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2014
Govt has no legitimate role dictating what people should eat or drink, what light bulbs to use, how their toilets should flush, ...


Hey - we agree.

100 years ago, eugenics was ethical and it is considered ethical today to murder babies before they are born.


As usual - off the point. The point is that you had no basis for accusing me of being a supporter of eugenics - and as such you were being a total prick. Maybe you should think about that.

brenda_tucker1
1 / 5 (9) Jul 21, 2014
The article contains reasonable thinking if it is possible to train experts on the subject within our educational system. I tried to get an education within the field of psychology, but ran into training material that was not provided at the University I was attending, forcing me to drop out of school and pursue my course of study elsewhere. The professor I tried an independent study with knew nothing about the material I was interested in and showed it by the questions he put to me. I studied for 20 years outside formal education before having an epiphany concerning what I was studying and forfeited my career in psychology doing so.

What I discovered was a new theory of evolution: http://www.homest...ion.html and I am using new words: girasas, involution, etc. I am making an appeal to experts and have been doing so for 19 years. Why can't journalists help someone like myself by printing the story of my discovery so that experts can learn of it?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2014
Hey - we agree.

No we don't. You said such a nanny state was required as long as there were stupid people.
The point is that you had no basis for accusing me of being a supporter of eugenics -

Why not?
Claiming 'ethical guidelines' will stop human experimentation for your benefit is quite a weak defense. 'Ethical guidelines' supported eugenics and still support the murder of babies before they are born.
Dr_toad
Jul 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
brenda_tucker1
1 / 5 (9) Jul 21, 2014
All I wanted to do was to prove/disprove whether or not liberation from rebirth is possible. I followed the directions as spelled out in THE YOGA SUTRAS, did spiritual reading in theosophy and St. Germain Foundation and the epiphany describes our circumstances differently than that of "liberation."

The idea changed into the idea of two kingdoms living together in one body and whether or not this is possible on earth in the near future or not depends upon the reception or rejection given to these circumstances.

I read that a 6th race will not begin for 400,000 years, but until that time working with the girasas on earth still may be possible if we put the best scientific minds to task.

My discovery suggests that we do not incur forcibly "liberation from form," but can choose the degree of "joining" that occurs between the two kingdoms. If the girasas kingdom is coming here, why go to their realm exclusively?

Id, ego, superego became angel, human, girasas: we are already endowed.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2014
No we don't. You said such a nanny state was required as long as there were stupid people.


Yes - I think that it is appropriate to legislate that parents cannot withhold medical treatment from their children for religious reasons, if it endangers the life of their children, or the society at large. Do you disagree with that?

Claiming 'ethical guidelines' will stop human experimentation for your benefit is quite a weak defense.


Do you not support human trials of medical research?

Again - accusing me of supporting eugenics is a shitty thing to do - I do not support eugenics - I do support the ethical practice of medical research.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jul 21, 2014
I think that it is appropriate to legislate that parents cannot withhold medical treatment from their children for religious reasons, if it endangers the life of their children, or the society at large. Do you disagree with that?


Yes.
Jenny McCarthy's opposition to vaccination was not based upon religion.
The state now own's your children?

I do support the ethical practice of medical research.

Whose ethics?
Many consider it ethical to murder babies with Down Syndrome.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2014
Whose ethics?
"Even more heartless was the reaction of a third doctor, to another couple whose baby had Down syndrome:

She was tiny, but she was great, like she was just the cutest thing. And then my husband comes in, and he looked weird and immediately he said, "The baby, something is wrong…" And all I could think of was that she's blind, I guess that was probably the worst thing I could ever have imagined. But the doctor had just called him and told him that Rose was a Mongoloid. We took a half hour to get it out of him, like he couldn't finish telling me the story, and then the doctor came in and said, "What your husband just told you is right." He was, like, very down on the whole thing, very negative. He said, "The only blessing is that they don't tend to live very long." So he thought it would be a good thing if our new baby would die. What more can I say?"
http://liveaction...ousness/
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2014
Yes.


Cool - we disagree - big surprise there huh?

Whose ethics?


The ethics of the society as a whole. You would agree that our society has a general set of ethics right? It is called laws. We object to people hurting animals - and punish them if they do that. Do you disagree with that concept?

We also have medical ethics boards that oversee medical research.

You never answered the question. Do you support medical research - including human trials or not?
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2014
Even more heartless was the reaction of a third doctor, to another couple whose baby had Down syndrome:


I agree that your example of a doctor's response to a child born with downes syndrome is very evil.

I have worked for many years in special education. Have you? Guess what Ryggy - as a society in general - we are very ethical in terms of our treatment of individuals with disabilities. We have laws like IDEA, (preceded by 94-142). We have de-institutionalized in large part. We now spend millions of dollars - caring for individuals with severe disabilities - in community based placements. I have worked with individuals with the most severe disabilities - who have no brain activity - and are kept alive only by the 24/7 care they receive. In short Ryggy - You know not of what you speak.
Dr_toad
Jul 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2014
We object to people hurting animals - and punish them if they do that. Do you disagree with that concept?


But it's acceptable to murder human babies.

The govt refused for decades to investigate a gruesome abortion doctor in a black neighborhood in Philadelphia. Sounds like state sanctioned eugenics.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2014
Thanks Dr_toad - it is a very demanding job - lot's of great people working there - very underpaid. I don't do it any more - but leaned so much from the experience. Anyone who understands the history of psychiatric nursing - and the institutions we use to run - knows a lot about life. Check out some of the youtubes about institutions like Willowbrook and other institutions. It is very expensive - but we are definitely doing a better job today.

https://www.youtu...jlWU2SWo
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2014
But it's acceptable to murder human babies.


Oh shock - you did not answer the question....

I have asked you if you support human trials in the development of medical therapies. You will not answer.
brenda_tucker1
1 / 5 (9) Jul 21, 2014
One of the conditions of the experiment I engaged in was to strive to be harmless and this meant a vegetarian life-style, but then after the epiphany when I began to tell others about this new theory of evolution which occurred to me, I had to admit that I was hurting people. By their reactions and comments, I could see that they were hurt. On top of the concept of being harmless, the concept of going extinct (in one sense) under the guidance of a higher kingdom was superimposed. Many, many decrees which are found in the books direct this higher kingdom to "annihilate what we know as human." Yet this is harmless because we are still living in our bodies, but not specifically and squarely as humans. We are undergoing change and the human becomes something without a name yet.

The idea of purifying to me makes much greater sense because this higher kingdom may like things on a higher arc than we do, but harmlessness? We strive, but fall short.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2014
support human trials in the development of medical therapies

Why not, if they are volunteers and know the risks.

We object to people hurting animals

Not all animals.
Do you object to people breeding animals with known defects like Collies or German Shepard? Or cutting off a dog's tail and trimming its ears for a look? Or keeping dogs confined when their instincts are to roam and hunt?
strangedays
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2014
Why not, if they are volunteers and know the risks.


But you criticized me saying this - "You would be the type to support eugenics, human experiments to obtain immortality."

And now you also admit that you would support human medical experimentation. Of course there has to be informed consent, and ethics oversight - there already is. You argue around in circles - and when finally pushed for an answer - turns out you are a hypocrite.

Not all animals.


I was making a point - about how the government - in my opinion appropriately - has rules governing our ethical behavior. To answer your specific point - I would personally not have a dog's tail cut off, or it's ears trimmed. Getting in to all the details of animal protection laws is beyond what I am interested in doing here - the point is that the government does get involved in the issue of ethics - you appeared to be arguing against government involvement of the issue of ethics.
Dr_toad
Jul 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2014
the point is that the government does get involved in the issue of ethics - you appeared to be arguing against government involvement of the issue of ethics.


Govt ethics is an oxymoronic term. How can the state, the monopoly on violence, legitimately get involved with ethics?

I don't see where you made any mention that those involved with human trials must be volunteers and fully informed of the risks.
You wave your hands and say 'ethics' without defining the term.
And say you want to me immortal. What are you willing to do to achieve it?
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2014
How can the state, the monopoly on violence, legitimately get involved with ethics?


Do you not support having laws regarding ethical issues - such as thou shalt not kill, or thou shalt not be cruel to animals etc etc?

I don't see where you made any mention that those involved with human trials must be volunteers and fully informed of the risks.


That is because I did not mention it. It does not change the basic issue. You accuse me of being in support of medical experimentation. I agree that I am in support of medical experimentation. Then when pushed - you have to admit that you also are in support of medical experimentation. See how stupid you are - and how you waste people's time?
brenda_tucker1
1 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2014
Laws don't work. If a higher kingdom (girasas) is descending into humans and that is the way that our evolution in nature works, then no law is going to change it.

We have to be aware, inform others of their choices, keep an open mind, and work through some difficulties to arrive at compromises if necessary and solutions.

Having the girasas inside of us and communicating with us and cooperating with us might mean not living as a human being. If people are willing (to me, it's thank God.) to allow this kingdom to descend and manifest, then it will likely be those people who get awarded the work with nature to produce an environment. In this scenario of evolution, involving lives are descending into all of nature, while the evolving life only makes use of the evolving kingdom, the only kingdom evolving on our earth at the present time: humans. Don't think it won't be awkward. At times, we may not completely understand their reasoning. That's why help is paramount.
Dr_toad
Jul 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2014
The Air Force does have a legitimate govt function, protecting private property
@ryg
no, it does NOT, unless there is MARTIAL LAW in the land. The LAW ENFORCEMENT which is both elected and other is detailed for the protection of LAWS and PRIVATE PROPERTY- THROUGH THE ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS.
The MILITARY is tasked with DEFENSE of HOMELAND (the air force is actually tasked with the Air and Space Defense and Superiority) and the completion of assigned orders in combat or otherwise overseas under the LAWFUL orders given by the Officers and the CIC/CINC of the armed forces.

there is NO mandate for the protection of private property for the military. The MILITARY is NOT THE SAME THING as the gov't... it is a BRANCH of the gov't with its own set of mandated tasks that it MUST perform.

the GOV'T protects private property thru LAW ENFORCEMENT and creating LAWS.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2014
What I discovered was a new theory of evolution: http://www.homest...ion.html and I am using new words: girasas, involution, etc. I am making an appeal to experts and have been doing so for 19 years. Why can't journalists help someone like myself by printing the story of my discovery so that experts can learn of it?
@brenda_tucker1
Maybe they are not helping you because there is no empirical data to support your claims?
if you have been doing this for 19 years and have been rejected by science for as long, you likely have at least a FEW valid reasons given to you by science that explains the reason that your philosophy is not considered SCIENTIFIC...
Making up words means nothing without a valid lexicon to research the defined meanings for translation... and your link doesn't work.
Also... what you have is NOT science. Science REQUIRES EMPIRICAL DATA as well as repeatable experiments that can PROVE a point.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2014
One of the conditions of the experiment I engaged in was to strive to be harmless and this meant a vegetarian life-style
@brenda_tucker1
wait... how is the blatant murder of one organism more harmless than the blatant murder of another? Did you consider your vegetarian lifestyle was actually MORE harmful becasue the body count is probably MUCH higher than the diet with meat? PERSPECTIVE is everything
Many, many decrees which are found in the books direct this higher kingdom to "annihilate what we know as human."
Theosophy and esotericism is NOT empirical, nor scientific. There are NO two experiments exactly alike due to the subjectivity of the event by an individual.

Thus your PHILOSOPHY is pseudoscience and THAT is why it is not being published as a science. Try pushing it to religious publications or talk to Reg Mundy or some local Wiccans about self publication

There are plenty of alternative religions out there willing to listen. This is a SCIENCE SITE
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2014
Do you not support having laws regarding ethical issues - such as thou shalt not kill, or thou shalt not be cruel to animals etc etc?


I have stated many, many times the purpose of the law is to protect property.

I submit society defines ethics, not the state. Quoting the Bible, you seem to agree
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2014
Did you consider your vegetarian lifestyle was actually MORE harmful becasue the body count is probably MUCH higher than the diet with meat?

Vegetarianism: Not eating animals visible to the naked eye.

Can't get more arbitrary than that with your life's choices.

I have stated many, many times the purpose of the law is to protect property.

Weirdly enough: Even communist nations have laws. So I think your definition falls short by ....a lot.
brenda_tucker1
1 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2014
Captain Stumpy,

I am trying to get published because there are many, many people who could benefit from hearing this point of view. While I do not want to address religion as a subject in these comments, there are people needing validity for their life choices. I can offer them validity.

There is plenty of data surrounding the circumstances I am presenting (and my link does work, just not in your copying of the link). You can search with my name and the word girasas to find my writings as well.

For journalists to be unbiased and present many points of view for consideration, they may have to include experts in the way that life creates "self-made" thinkers. A person that has devoted years to study and research outside the established curriculum may have material with great significance to future abilities and objectives.

Don't direct the subject away from the topic.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 23, 2014
Even communist nations have laws

Not all laws protect property. Some laws legalize plunder.
Bastiat describes just and unjust laws quite well in The Law.
It's a short read, for some of you, and is easily found on-line.
strangedays
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2014
I have stated many, many times the purpose of the law is to protect property.

I submit society defines ethics, not the state. Quoting the Bible, you seem to agree


Please explain your understanding of the difference between 'society', and 'the state'.

My understanding of the laws of the U.S. - is that the laws are arbitrated by the Supreme Court, and that the U.S. Constitution is the base document on which these laws are based. Both of these entities are "State' entities - is that correct? Do you agree that it is the State that arbitrates ethics?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2014
Do you agree that it is the State that arbitrates ethics?

No.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2014
"How is it possible that a practice that was legal in the past is now against the law? Is it the case that slavery, for example, used to be ethical, but now it isn't? Of course not. Ethics hasn't changed. The law just took awhile to become aligned with what is right."
"Yes, laws are important. But all of us, and not just the employees of a certain manufacturer of hot dogs and salami, should answer to a higher authority."
{The Higher Authority is not the state.}
http://www.busine...l-advice
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 23, 2014
"the legal principles of any society can be established in three alternate ways: (a) by following the traditional custom of the tribe or community; (b) by obeying the arbitrary, ad hoc will of those who rule the State apparatus; or (c) by the use of man's reason in discovering the natural law—in short, by slavish conformity to custom, by arbitrary whim, or by use of man's reason. These are essentially the only possible ways for establishing positive law. Here we may simply affirm that the latter method is at once the most appropriate for man at his most nobly and fully human, and the most potentially "revolutionary" vis-à-vis any given status quo."
http://mises.org/...hree.asp
I would expect people who claim to reason would favor and support (c) instead of (b) as so many here do.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2014
"Do you agree that it is the State that arbitrates ethics"

Ryggy

No.


Then you do not recognize the Supreme Court - or the U.S. constitution. Wow - Ryggy - just wow.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2014
If the SCOTUS arbitrated ethics, it would have abolished slavery.

The state does not arbitrate ethics.

It's not ethical to murder babies. The state disagrees.
strangedays
5 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2014
Ryggy - you have a complete lack of understanding of the complex nature of ethics (no surprise there right?) Ethics is subjective - and changes over time. You know that your holy book endorses slavery - right? Oh - you probably never read that part - got stuck on John 3:16. Laws that govern human behavior are of course ethics. Having a law against discriminating against a person on the basis of age, race, sexual orientation etc. etc. is of course legislating ethics. The STATE legislates ethics. You have no argument.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2014
Ethics is subjective - and changes over time.

No, they haven't.
The STATE legislates ethics.

That's what socialists need to fill up concentration camps and murder those that oppose them.

Laws that govern human behavior are of course ethics.

No, they are not.

Ethics existed before state. Society existed before state.
strangedays
5 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2014
No, they haven't.


Really Ryggy - so what is the objective source of these ethics - that does not change over time?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2014
objective source of these ethics

Reason.
http://mises.org/...hree.asp
You claim to like reason.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2014
Don't direct the subject away from the topic
@brenda_tucker1
and to what are you reffering specifically to? my comments on your choice of vegetarianism? the arbitrary murder of flora?
I am trying to get published because there are many, many people who could benefit from hearing this point of view
this is YOUR personal conjecture, and it is SUBJECTIVE
There is plenty of data surrounding the circumstances I am presenting
but it is NOT empirical data, nor repeatable. it is SUBJECTIVE to the INDIVIDUAL.
Your description so far means you are talking about somehting that would be considered a FAITH or RELIGION, and NOT SCIENCE. now, considering the is a SCIENCE SITE, that means your posts are all COMPLETELY off topic. My posts are an attempt to show this to you.

by the way... when I said YOUR link didn't work, I was NOT referring to the copied one in my post... but YOUR link! hence the choice of the word YOUR in that.
YOUR link might be saved to YOUR PC...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2014
I can offer them validity
@brenda
no, you can only offer them a religion or faith. their validity MUST come from within
You can search with my name and the word girasas to find my writings as well
not to be rude, but WHY would I? THIS IS A SCIENCE SITE, not a religious/New age forum
For journalists to be unbiased and present many points of view for consideration, they may have to include experts in the way that life creates "self-made" thinkers
you are thinking reporters looking for a story or to reporting facts, or maybe a study... again, this is a SCIENCE SITE. they report on SCIENCE. got that yet?
so it is YOU who is directing the conversation from the topic, which SHOULD be SCIENCE, and specifically False reporting of media due to Biased perspective, POV's, and more. The inability to differentiate SCIENCE from things like RELIGION DO come into play regarding the PUBLIC (like you) but this is due to scientific illiteracy.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2014
If the SCOTUS arbitrated ethics, it would have abolished slavery
@ryg
the reason you are considered an idiot by most everyone is comments like this above...

http://www.archiv...0Slavery
from the ARCHIVES.GOV link...
Passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment abolished slavery in the United States and provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.".
now about your comment
It's not ethical to murder babies. The state disagrees
again, the SCOTUS says it is NOT legal to murder BABIES... what YOU are saying is that a baby is a baby from the time of fertilization of the egg...

now: do you eat chicken eggs?
WHATS THE DIFFERENCE?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2014
Ethics is subjective-and changes over time

No, they haven't
YES, THEY DO rygg. we've had this discussion.
IF they didn't, YOU could NOT live in America with mixed races together. One historical ethic was NEVER to mix your culture, race, beliefs with another. This is NOT an ethic that is legal in the US. There are NO laws saying baptists cannot marry catholics or jews (which WAS/IS an ethic still clung to in other places and even by some culturally driven fanatical idiots in the US)
also, the whole MURDER thing: in the past, killing your slave was fine and ehtical, & didn't require justification. Now, we are NOT allowed to have SLAVES OR KILL them arbitrarily like a broken tool.
then there is the multi-wife issue
ETHICS and CULTURAL MORALS/BELIEFS are malleable

Just because ethics and morals existed BEFORE the state, doesn't mean that they are not influenced BY the state. (slavery)

RESEARCH before being PROVEN STUPID ryg

KEEP IT UP STRANGE
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2014
the SCOTUS says it is NOT legal to murder BABIES...

Of course it does.

Is slavery ethical?
SCOTUS stated slavery was legal. Is that ethical?
Vietvet
5 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2014
the SCOTUS says it is NOT legal to murder BABIES...

Of course it does.

Is slavery ethical?
SCOTUS stated slavery was legal. Is that ethical?


You are so fixated on your rigid ideology it has left you incapable of THINKING.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2014
SCOTUS stated slavery was legal. Is that ethical?

Just because ethics and morals existed BEFORE the state, doesn't mean that they are not influenced BY the state


The assertion was made that only the state defines ethics via the law.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2014
"Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well-founded reasons. "
http://www.scu.ed...ics.html
Vietvet
4.8 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2014
the SCOTUS says it is NOT legal to murder BABIES...

Of course it does.

Is slavery ethical?
SCOTUS stated slavery was legal. Is that ethical?


The Bible condones slavery. Is that ethical?
The Framers enshrined slavery in the Constitution. Is that ethical?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2014
" Being ethical is also not the same as following the law. The law often incorporates ethical standards to which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical. Our own pre-Civil War slavery laws and the old apartheid laws of present-day South Africa are grotesquely obvious examples of laws that deviate from what is ethical.

Finally, being ethical is not the same as doing "whatever society accepts." In any society, most people accept standards that are, in fact, ethical. But standards of behavior in society can deviate from what is ethical. An entire society can become ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany is a good example of a morally corrupt society. "
http://www.scu.ed...ics.html
strangedays
5 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2014
SCOTUS stated slavery was legal. Is that ethical?


No Ryggy - I do not believe slavery is ethical - and I am glad that ruling was reversed. So now SCOTUS states that discrimination is not ethical. Is that ethical?

You say that ethics is based on reason - and I agree with you. But - are you aware that reason has often been the basis of great evil? The KKK used their own 'reason' to support their lynchings. So 'reason' is subjective - Right? So then Ethics are subjective - right? Laws are the codification of that SUBJECTIVE reason - which is why laws change over time. The EU forbids the death penalty. Many states in the U.S. practice the death penalty - but it is illegal in some. See - even at the same moment in time - there is disagreement about ethics. So they are SUBJECTIVE - right? SCOTUS is consistently split 5 to 4 on legal issues. This stuff is highly SUBJECTIVE.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2014
"Nor should one identify ethics with religion. Most religions, of course, advocate high ethical standards. Yet if ethics were confined to religion, then ethics would apply only to religious people. But ethics applies as much to the behavior of the atheist as to that of the devout religious person. Religion can set high ethical standards and can provide intense motivations for ethical behavior. Ethics, however, cannot be confined to religion nor is it the same as religion. "
http://www.scu.ed...ics.html
strangedays
5 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2014
Ryggy
The law often incorporates ethical standards


Look how contradict yourself -

I said - "Laws that govern human behavior are of course ethics."

And you replied -

"No, they are not."

But that is logically contradictory - you are just flat wrong.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2014
So now SCOTUS states that discrimination is not ethical. Is that ethical?

Then you agree the state does not define ethics.
So 'reason' is subjective - Right?

Wrong.
supamark23
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2014


Possibly the smartest thing you've ever said... nothing.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2014
" St. Thomas Aquinas, in the words of the eminent historian of philosophy Father Copleston, "emphasized the place and function of reason in moral conduct. He [Aquinas] shared with Aristotle the view that it is the possession of reason which distinguished man from the animals" and which "enables him to act deliberately in view of the consciously apprehended end and raises him above the level of purely instinctive behavior.""
"Aquinas, then, realized that men always act purposively, but also went beyond this to argue that ends can also be apprehended by reason as either objectively good or bad for man. For Aquinas, then, in the words of Copleston, "there is therefore room for the concept of 'right reason,' reason directing man's acts to the attainment of the objective good for man." "
http://mises.org/daily/2426
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2014
Ryggy - your quote mining is not helpfull in terms of argument - it tells me that you are not capable of thinking independently - and must resort to copying what someone else said hundreds of years ago - especially quoting Christian philosophers is completely worthless on a science site.

I gave you a perfectly good example (the death penalty) that demonstrates very clearly that ethics ARE subjective. Diiferent people, different groups - using REASON - will arrive at different conclusions regarding ethics. If you can address that point - in your own words - go for it.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2014
especially quoting Christian philosophers is completely worthless on a science site.

"Reason may be employed in two ways to establish a point: first for the purpose of furnishing sufficient proof of some principle, as in natural science, where sufficient proof can be brought to show that the movement of the heavens is always of uniform velocity. Reason is employed in another way, not as furnishing a sufficient proof of a principle, but as confirming an already established principle, by showing the congruity of its results, as in astrology the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this reason were sufficient, since some other theory might explain them."
— Saint Thomas Aquinas
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2014
" For it is necessary in every practical science to proceed in a composite (i.e. deductive) manner. On the contrary in speculative science, it is necessary to proceed in an analytical manner by breaking down the complex into elementary principles."

— Saint Thomas Aquinas

strange, why did you say that the FIRST step in performing science is to conduct a literature search if you you don't respect historical science literature?

ethics ARE subjective.

Follow your own advice. Do some research and provide data to support your hypothesis.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2014
strange, why did you say that the FIRST step in performing science is to conduct a literature search if you you don't respect historical science literature?


Because when I talk about a literature search - I am talking about looking to see what research has or is being done on the topic you are about to research. I am not talking about reading philosophy.

However - I did provide you with a sound argument to support my position (this is not a hypothesis - we are not doing research - we are debating ethics). You are unable to respond appropriately - as the fact of the matter is - ethics ARE subjective. I demonstrated that - of course - instead of being able to understand the point - you cut and paste some philosophy from ancient relitious philosophers. I live in today...
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2014
Here Ryggy - is a statement of ethics - made by an atheist - on the topic of the death penalty.

" I have one life and I intend to make the most of it. Therefore it follows naturally that if I firmly believe this, why then I cannot deprive another person of their turn at existence. Only the very self-assured political and religious zealots kill people in order to save them."

If - as you stipulate - ethics are objective - I assume you would have to agree with this position regarding the death penalty - correct?
verkle
1 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2014
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.


A great quote. Should expand it to: What can be asserted with unconvincing evidence can be dismissed and we should not have continue to read article after article of politically and religiously biased authors on science websites.

Vietvet
5 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2014
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.


A great quote. Should expand it to: What can be asserted with unconvincing evidence can be dismissed and we should not have continue to read article after article of politically and religiously biased authors on science websites.



That's funny coming from you and your religious based anti-science comments.
strangedays
5 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2014
verkle
we should not have continue to read article after article of politically and religiously biased authors on science websites.


Sorry - just clarification - is someone holding a gun to your head? I can never fathom the people who complain about the articles. I just figure that I read the web sites that I am good with - and leave the other sites to people who appreciate a different approach. Physorg has a fair mix of articles - and I am quiet able to look at the title - or maybe skim a bit of the article - and read what I am interested in. Maybe I am a genius or something - it seems pretty easy to me.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
A great quote. Should expand it to: What can be asserted with unconvincing evidence can be dismissed and we should not have continue to read article after article of politically and religiously biased authors on science websites
@verkle
this is EXACTLY why you don't see creationist crap here... it is "unconvincing" evidence"

but wait... that's not all....!!

THE ONLY REASON THAT YOU FIND EMPIRICAL DATA AND THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN REAL SCIENCE "UNCONVINCING" IN YOUR DELUSIONAL MIND IS THAT YOU'VE ALREADY FORMULATED A FAITH BASED REASON FOR YOUR REALITY.

Therefore, no matter what is proven to you, and no matter how much empirical data is out there, you will steadfastly IGNORE anything that doesn't agree with your FAITH- this is NOT Ignorance, or a lack of knowledge, this is BLATANT STUPIDITY.

THIS IS WHY RELIGION AND SCIENCE DO NOT MIX

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2014


THIS IS WHY RELIGION AND SCIENCE DO NOT MIX


One of your deities didn't think so...

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ... a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." Einstein

Probably why he can around to Monseigneur Georges Lemaître's religious creation myth of the Big Bang.

"This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened." Einstein

I on the other hand prefer Alfven's POV;

"Since religion intrinsically rejects empirical methods, there should never be any attempt to reconcile scientific theories with religion." Hannes Alfven

as well as his opposition to the creation myth you hold dear to your heart...

"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing.

"There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago." Alfven
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
I am not talking about reading philosophy.

Research methods applies here.
Modern science used to be called natural philosophy.
I did provide you with a sound argument to support my position

No, you did not.
I oppose the death penalty because I don't trust the state. Too many innocent people have been convicted.

"Nor should one identify ethics with religion..."
Why do you persist in doing so?

must resort to copying what someone else said hundreds of years ago

Then you support abolishing Newton's calculus and physics from all schools? Abolish the teaching of Greek literature, English literature?
Every scientist must reject all previous work and start from scratch?
I post from Aquinas since most here have likely had no education in Western Civilization. 'Liberals' have forced that out of schools.
strangedays
5 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
Research methods applies here.


I disagree - we are just have a discussion.

No, you did not.


Yes I did - let me lay it out for you one more time. Your position is that ethics are objective. My position is that they are subjective. I gave you an example of a situation - in which two groups - have come to a different conclusion regarding what is ethical. It is simple logic - that I have demonstrated - that ethics are subjective. Again - I showed you how one individual has concluded - using reason - that the death penalty is unethical. You disagree. Ergo - ethics are subjective. No need for research - when making a fairly straightforward argument of logic.

Then you support abolishing Newton's calculus and physics from all schools?


How stupid of you. No logical connection between an argument on a comments section - and what is taught in schools.
strangedays
5 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
'Liberals' have forced that out of schools.


Conservatives are far more concerned about gutting our education of science. The ID community is well organized, conservative, and hates knowledge. It will be interesting to watch America shake off this cancer - and perhaps one day restore it's education system.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
Your position is that ethics are objective

Not just my position.
It is the position of many of the greatest minds in history. I agree and pass along their wisdom.

The socialist community hates knowledge and loves power. I dare say there are significantly more socialists who are trying to rewrite history, push addenda 'science' and acquire political power to control the lives of others than the ID community.
But strange, and others here, are members of that intolerant, socialist cabal and would rather chase squirrels (recall the movie "Up") than focus on how the 'liberals' are destroying science and reason.
strangedays
5 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
The socialist community hates knowledge and loves power.


As does the Church, and the current U.S. Republican party. Perhaps why I am not a socialist, or religious, or Republican. I love knowledge, and I hate power - it almost always leads to excess. I also hate stupidity - sorry Ryggy - you exhibit massive levels of this quality - unable to think for yourself.
strangedays
5 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
It is the position of many of the greatest minds in history.


Ahhh - so that settles it right? Are there any great minds in history that disagree? Is it not the position of 'many of the greatest minds in history - that there is a God?' This does not make them correct. Interesting how the anti science people scream about 'deference to authority' - until it serves your purpose. You cannot think for yourself.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
As does the Church,

What church?
The Catholic Church runs many universities, they operate an observatory. Many parents pay to send their children to Catholic k-12 schools.

I love knowledge, and I hate power -

You don't act like it. Especially when you choose to exclude great works from history based upon your hatred of religion.
Why do you care about God? God is outside of science and many scientists, present and past, believe God exists.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
Will the MSM report on this?

"In some sense, the radical environmentalists are entering their prime. After decades of spreading fear, lies and exaggerations, after a long crusade of conditioning and training the public, they at last feel safe to move on to their final solution.

With the possible exception of its earliest days, environmentalism was never about the environment or Earth. It was about replacing freedom with democratic socialism or outright statism. If it had been about the environment, green groups would have promoted capitalism and its wealth creation."
"Why is capitalism better for the environment?

In part, because a prosperous nation can afford to be clean. We have the resources to mop up after ourselves and produce less-grubby industrial processes. A poorer nation can do neither. Capitalism also protects property rights, and private property is far less likely to be fouled than land that no one — or everyone — owns."
http://news.inves.../072414-
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2014
One of your deities didn't think so
@cantthink
unlike YOU and your EU faith, worshiping alfven, I have NO deities.
strangedays
5 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
What church?


You name it - all churches that I have experienced. A guru - standing at the front of the church every Sunday - sheep in the audience - hanging off every word. Your selection of the Catholic church is very informative. The Church wields much power in our world - we will be much better off as we wean ourselves from the need to let others do our thinking for us - as you clearly do.

Why do you care about God? God is outside of science and many scientists, present and past, believe God exists.


I don't care about God. I care about science, and progress. I care about the fact that there are many forces in our world that are holding us back from thinking, and progressing. Belief in supernatural mumbo jumbo is number one on my list as an agent of anti progress. Many scientists past and present believe in lots of things - we could probably find scientists who believe in ghosts. That does not make ghosts real.
strangedays
5 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2014
You don't act like it.


Yes I do. See how easy that one was to deal with. Many great minds from the past supported socialism. Does that mean you support socialism - or that you don't love knowledge?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
The Catholic Church saved and helped perpetuate the western world.
Harvard University was founded to educate ministers.
I don't care about God. I care about science, and progress.

Science is your god? After all, you seem quite upset that anyone would ever believe that God exists.
That does not make ghosts real.

Of course if a soul was scientifically demonstrated, would your head explode? Anti-God people like strange are limiting themselves to the possibilities. If consciousness exists outside a human body, strange would have what he desires, eternal life.
If space-time has dimensions we can't perceive, yet are all around us, now, strange would refuse to even look at such concepts for fear he might discover the Bible would be validated.
Talk about anti-progress! Refusing to be open to possibilities out of hatred and prejudice.
Aquinas and early scientists engaged in science to reveal God's works. Strange would be afraid to engage in science if they did reveal God.
strangedays
5 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
Talk about anti-progress! Refusing to be open to possibilities


Wow Ryggy - look at how you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Scientists are the ones with open minds. Always exploring. However - they are disciplined - and require evidence in order to believe in something. See the difference? You believe in what ever you want to believe in - and then you accuse us of being the ones who are not open to possibilities. I am open to any possibility - just show the evidence.

Strange would be afraid to engage in science if they did reveal God.


Complete bullshit - shows exactly how you have no idea how science works. If science reveals God - then science reveals God. It is what is it. That does not forgive the laziness of believing in bullshit. What bullshit you say. That a magic sky fairy - built a universe - and then sent most of his creation to hell - that bullshit.
strangedays
4.9 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2014
Science is your god? After all, you seem quite upset that anyone would ever believe that God exists.


Let me qualify that for you. I am upset that religious people lie to children about the existence of God. Also that religious people kill each other in the name of their God. I am upset that the human race has so much potential - and most of it is being squandered on bullshit - like WWF, cold reading psychics, whose line is it anyway, religion, tarrot cards etc. etc. etc. Any one who has learned to think is upset by these things.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
Scientists are the ones with open minds.

Not according to Max Planck, known as the father of quantum mechanics.

If science reveals God - then science reveals God. It is what is it.

But it's so easy NOT to look.

I am upset that religious people lie to children about the existence of God.

How do you know it's a lie? Where is the science?
Strange sounds like someone raised believing in God, but was upset when God didn't answer a prayer.
strangedays
5 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2014
Not according to Max Planck, known as the father of quantum mechanics.


Oh - that settles it - if Max Planck said it - then it has to be truth. Once again your deferral to authority - rather than being able to think for yourself. What a sad little person you seem to me.

Let me give you two more quotes from Planck -

"Experiment is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is poetry, imagination."

and

"[I do not believe] in a personal God, let alone a Christian God."

Now what are you going to do Ryggy? - your guru just disapproved of your lazy thinking. I feel lucky - I don't need a guru - just an independent mind.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2014
Not according to Max Planck, known as the father of quantum mechanics
this is the CANTDRIVE FALLACY in our psyche class: the fallacy statement that assumes that nothing has changed in the intervening years since the statement, life/death etc of the original comment. Of course, Max didn't have internet, worldwide dissemination of information, science and education etc
How do you know it's a lie? Where is the science?
absence of proof is NOT proof of truth.

stick to arguing politics and bible, ryg. you can't actually ever be wrong as either argument is fallacious from the start and based upon a delusion, as well as completely subjective to the individual.
one basic PROOF that your religion is NOT REAL? the HISTORICAL DATA as well as the PROOF of authorship of your own books

just ask OTTO...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2014
Once again your deferral to authority - rather than being able to think for yourself.

Planck sums up quite nicely what I would say about scientists being open minded. Coming from a scientist who has experience with other scientists should add a bit more weight to the observation.
Barry Marshal, Alfred Wegener, Arthur Holmes didn't find many open minded scientists either.
But when there is much money and many opportunities to publish, like promoting AGWism, there seems to many scientists open that idea.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
Speaking of ghosts, Sagan addressed that issue nicely with "Contact".
How can science address an observation only one individual can experience?
strangedays
5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
Maybe you should listen to Arthur Holmes - "Again and again the old groupings of left and right no longer seem helpful. Sloganeering and dogmatizing settle nothing, nor do emotional tirades and protests really help us sort things through in a thoughtful, biblical fashion."

Your writings are a complete tirade of sloganeering and dogmatizing - railing against the socialists, and the agwites.

I am sorry that you have such a low opinion of scientists. I also know scientists - I don't share your negativism. I have much lower opinion of people working in politics, business, and also of course religion.

HOWEVER - my main point is not about the people studying science. It is about the process of science. The way of knowing. We are different. You support a superstitious - believe anything you want approach - and I support an evidence based system. Your system neither impresses, or appeals to me - your system it THE problem in my view.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
I support an evidence based system.

Then you like wearing blinders, are not very curious and could never imagine how to address the dilemma Sagan noted in "Contact" and one that Planck mentions as well.

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.

Max Planck"

strangedays
5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
Then you like wearing blinders, are not very curious and could never imagine how to address the dilemma Sagan noted in "Contact" and one that Planck mentions as well.


That is your take on it. I disagree totally. I see an evidence based system as a system with a framework for thinking - vs your system of make believe. It is an evidence based system that is open minded - open to any possibility - but with the protection of saying - we are not vulnerable to fakery - we require evidence - that is not closed minded - it is honest - and disciplined.
strangedays
5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
Final question Ryggy - I think we have run this thread dry.

I come to a science site - to be inspired by what the world of science and technology is doing. It is my hope for the future. I see that as a process with integrity - and congruence

You seem to come to a science site - to attack science - to be negative - to discourage people. That seems to me to be very mean spirited process. Are you comfortable being seen as a person who spams a site - with discouragement - and negativism - deliberately provoking people into angry exchanges? I don't go to religious, or denier, or anti science sites - deliberately to pick fights. Do you see how you are setting yourself up for a lot of conflict - and to be seen in a very negative light.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
I see that as a process with integrity

Then you must be really upset at the AGWites who have no integrity.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
I see that as a process with integrity

Then you must be really upset at the AGWites who have no integrity.
the funny thing about this comment... The above believers in SCIENCE and the scientific method have produced evidence from empirical data, sources with peer reviewed publications and empirical evidence and have shown integrity...

Ryg et al and the denier crowd have produced NO empirical evidence... have a tendency to post personal OR OTHER conjecture from BLOG sites and gut feelings

Integrity? I don't think you know what that means, Ryg. I don't think you EVER knew what it meant.
strangedays
5 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2014
Then you must be really upset at the AGWites who have no integrity.


I don't relate to your childish term AGWite. I do respect the scientists who are studying the climate. I do not respect childish name calling. You engage in this all the time. Guess you really just emphasized the last point that I was trying make. Good job.....
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2014
I don't relate to your childish term AGWite. I do respect the scientists who are studying the climate. I do not respect childish name calling. You engage in this all the time. Guess you really just emphasized the last point that I was trying make. Good job.....
@Strangedays

Check out this page... interesting and relevant article! you will find it fascinating!

http://arstechnic...nformed/

I just received it on another site and it might shed some light here with some posters...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
I do not respect childish name calling.

Funny, you don't mind your fellow travelers' name calling.
AGWite is a perfectly apt description for those who believe humans cause global warming. Why would you think it derogatory?

sources with peer reviewed publications

Why do you assume the peers have integrity when AGWites are on record claiming to control the publications?

" 1. "Peer-review" - certainly where climate "science" is concerned - is a busted flush.

We learned this from the Climategate emails. Here's one from Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!""
http://www.breitb...-papers/
strangedays
5 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
Thanks Captain - interesting article. The last line says a lot - "The problem is that a culture war has infected the conversation"
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
Why would you think it derogatory?


I, and others have pointed out to you that it is childish name calling. That your comments are riddled with childish - provocative - deliberately inflamatory name calling.

Very hard to understand why someone would come to a science site - and want to represent themselves in such a poor way.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
Why is AGWite derogatory?

It's a concise term just like many in the AGWite community like to use.

Don't you believe humans cause global warming?

""But many poor countries, like Venezuela, do not support a "green economy" solution to global warming, instead, arguing that rich countries should give poor nations cash payments and technology transfers." I interpret this to mean that the poorer countries want food stamps and Obama Phones. And who wouldn't. Perhaps some state supplied contraception to go along with it? - See more at: http://thepeoples...TEO.dpuf
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
""To combat climate change it is necessary to change the system," the declaration adds.

Environmental activists met in the oil producing, socialist country of Venezuela as part of a United Nations-backed event to increase civil engagement in the lead up to a major climate conference.

But environmentalists surprised U.N. officials by offering up a declaration that not only seeks to end capitalism, but one that also opposes U.N.-backed efforts to fight global warming — namely, cap-and-trade and forest conservation programs."
"But many poor countries, like Venezuela, do not support a "green economy" solution to global warming, instead, arguing that rich countries should give poor nations cash payments and technology transfers."
http://dailycalle...italism/
strangedays
4.8 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
Why is AGWite derogatory?


It is a childish and deliberately provocative term. It is not adult to use deliberately provocative terms. It is the behavior of an immature child. It shows that the person using the term is not interested in a reasoned conversation - but is trying to start a fight. Why do you come to a science site - and purposely start childish fights - is it just a game for you?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2014
"Br. Guy Consolmagno SJ was born in 1952 in Detroit, Michigan. He obtained his Bachelor of Science in 1974 and Master of Science in 1975 in Earth and Planetary Sciences from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his PhD in Planetary Science from the University of Arizona in 1978. From 1978-80 he was a postdoctoral fellow and lecturer at the Harvard College Observatory, and from 1980-1983 continued as postdoc and lecturer at MIT."
"Br. Consolmagno is curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Castel Gandolfo, one of the largest in the world."
http://vaticanobs...ther-guy
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2014
It is not adult to use deliberately provocative terms. It is the behavior of an immature child.

Do you condemn your fellow travelers' use of 'denier', or just plain vulgarity?

AGWite a concise, descriptive and accurate term.
"
-ite
1
a suffix of nouns denoting especially persons associated with a place, tribe, leader, doctrine, system, etc. "
AGW: anthropogenic global warming
AGWite: persons associated with the doctrine of anthropogenic global warming
strangedays
5 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2014
Do you condemn your fellow travelers' use of 'denier', or just plain vulgarity?


I am talking to you. You are the immature little child - who resorts to calling people names - like socialist, and agwite. I am talking to you. You are the closed minded one - who has nothing but quote mines, and childish insults.
strangedays
4.8 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2014
AGWite: persons associated with the doctrine of anthropogenic global warming


I am not associated with the doctrine of anything. My support goes to the discipline of science. An evidentiary based system of thinking. If the science says that the climate is warming - then it is what it is. Stop being so childish.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2014
If the science says that the climate is warming

What is causing any warming?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2014
Do you condemn your fellow travelers' use of 'denier', or just plain vulgarity?


I am talking to you. You are the immature little child - who resorts to calling people names - like socialist, and agwite. I am talking to you. You are the closed minded one - who has nothing but quote mines, and childish insults.


What a coward and hypocrite!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2014
"all climate models predict that rising carbon dioxide levels will cause rapid warming in the troposphere over the tropics. But that's not what has happened, as neither satellites nor weather balloons have detected much warming in the tropical troposphere — meaning something is likely wrong with the models."
"climate scientists continue to debate the huge differences between observed and modeled tropospheric temperatures and what it means for predicting global warming.

"What I can say from the standpoint of applying the scientific method to a robust response-feature of models, is that the average model result is inconsistent with the observed rate of change of tropical tropospheric temperature — inconsistent both in absolute magnitude and in vertical structure," wrote John Christy, climate scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville."
""This indicates our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous," Christy added.
http://dailycalle...models-o
strangedays
5 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2014
What a coward and hypocrite!


Asking YOU to be responsible for what YOU say - is being neither a coward or a hypocrite. I am simply suggesting that instead of distracting - by trying to talk about what others have said - YOU take responsibility for what YOU said. Is that concept too complex for you?
strangedays
5 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2014
What is causing any warming?


An increase in the atmospheric content of green house gases. The scientific community has informed us of this - I am willing to listen to what they say. I am surprised you did not know this.
strangedays
5 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2014
all climate models predict that rising carbon dioxide levels will cause rapid warming in the troposphere over the tropics. But that's not what has happened


It is amazing how many times you want to bring up the same issue. Models are models - they are flawed - due to lack of compete understanding of a very complex system. The models are proving robust - within certain error bars - but not perfect.

sometimes - the models of weather systems get it wrong. They say it will rain - and it does not. But the models are still useful - as long as we don't expect perfection. You have been told this many many times - but you continue to raise the same issue.

What a coward and hypocrite!


Baseless name calling is not becoming. Your debate tactics are extremely childish.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2014
What is causing any warming?


An increase in the atmospheric content of green house gases. The scientific community has informed us of this - I am willing to listen to what they say. I am surprised you did not know this.

And the data is ...?
So, you are putting your faith in THE CLIMATE MODEL? Models you acknowledge are flawed. And you are unwilling to think for yourself an review data to the contrary that I provided a link to.
As you believe AGWites, you must be an AGWite, not a freethinker as you assert.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2014
The scientific community has informed us of this

Have they?

"...the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist..."
Hal Lewis, resignation letter to APS.
strangedays
5 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2014
And the data is ...?


Extensive - in fact mountainous. It has all been laid out for you before. Which is why there is a very significant consensus in the science community.

As you believe AGWites, you must be an AGWite, not a freethinker as you assert.


How childish of you - yet again. Your use of childish - name calling is sickening. No matter how many times someone points out to you that you debate like a five year old - you just double down and continue on. I do not subscribe to any ideology - I am a free thinker - I respect the process of science - which is an evidentiary based system of knowing. Perhaps you should reflect on how straightforward the position I have just laid out is (for the hundredth time) and how you are not capable of understanding something so straight forward. Perhaps you would consider some introductory education classes.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2014
Extensive - in fact mountainous.

No, it's a molehill.
The only way CO2 is tied to AGW is by THE CLIMATE MODEL.
Models you admit are flawed.
So if you believe the AGWites, you must be one, not a scientist.
strangedays
5 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2014
The only way CO2 is tied to AGW is by THE CLIMATE MODEL.


Not true - and such a basic scientific inaccuracy shows how little you understand of this topic. Yet you continue throwing around your childish insults. I don't even know what you mean with your stupid, childish term AGWite. One again - I am a supporter of science - and it is the science that guides my understanding of the world - you only know how to throw around childish insults - and no matter how many times folks point out your childish behavior - you double down - and keep doing it.

Here is some reading for you on the relationship between C02 and current warming. If you disagree with this information - please show us, either evidence that the globe is not warming - or evidence that warming is due to something other than greenhouse gasses.

http://www.skepti...fect.htm

http://scienceblo...hat-co2/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2014
CO2 is factored into AGW by using THE CLIMATE MODEL and 'forcngs', which are
adjustments made to the model to make it match observations.
Of course now, there is almost an indirect relationship, or none at all.
CO2 is increasing. Temperature, a measure of heat energy, is not.
I provide a link to a paper that documents this.
Another story on physorg talks about super-conductivity. One theory was proposed and seemed to work, but then, it failed and no one has a complete theory of super-conductivity.
Face it strange, you've drunk the Cool Aid and are an AGWite.
strangedays
5 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2014
Maybe you should have someone read through the links I provided. The evidence for C02 being causative in the current warming is not dependent on the models. It stands alone.

Once again - for the thousandth time - warming is not only measured by atmospheric temperatures - the system as a whole continues to warm - and observation IS in line with the theory.

Face it strange, you've drunk the Cool Aid and are an AGWite.


You don't provoke me with your five year old behavior - you only validate for those observing - how immature your are.

In your opinion - being disciplined - and consistent - in requiring evidence - before I will accept information as factual - is equivalent to 'drinking the Cool Aid' What ever Ryggy - just what ever.
strangedays
5 / 5 (6) Jul 27, 2014
Of course now, there is almost an indirect relationship, or none at all.
CO2 is increasing. Temperature, a measure of heat energy, is not.


Really??? - here is the data.

Past 400,000 years.

http://www.grida....057.aspx

Past 130 years.

http://www.c2es.o...co2-temp

And your assessment is that there is an 'indirect relationship'. You know NOTHING about the subject of correlation - but continue to embarrass yourself in front of your peers.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2014
Scientists today have no courage.
Someone mentioned ghosts and now with so much technology and videos like this:

http://www.thebla...-or-cry/

What scientist has the courage to investigate?
This is what happens when 'science' becomes 'politically' correct and afraid of the conclusions.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2014
""Five plus," she says of the number of ghosts in the house. "I have some here that are protecting me, some women here that are protecting me, but the majority are bad, dark forces, inhuman.""
http://fox43.com/...8deu20Bt
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2014
"A new paper published in the Chinese Science Bulletin has found a "high correlation between solar activity and the Earth's averaged surface temperature over centuries," suggesting that climate change is intimately linked with solar cycles rather than human activity."

http://csb.scichi...43.shtml
strangedays
5 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2014
Wow - just wow - Ryggy reports that scientists are afraid of the conclusions - so they avoid doing research, that ghosts are real - especially the dark inhuman forces ones, and that solar cycles are the cause of climate change.

Thanks Ryggy.
mikep608
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2014
"False balance can also be created by assuming that a person from outside the field (a non-expert) will somehow have a perspective that will shed light on an issue, that the real expert is too "caught up in the details" to be objective.

I like to think that I shed much needed light.

Mike P-
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
"Two accomplished living physicists who believe in extrasensory perception are Freeman Dyson and Brian Josephson. As I mentioned in a post last year, Dyson has written that "paranormal phenomena are real but lie outside the limits of science." No one has produced empirical proof of psi, he suggested, because it tends to occur under conditions of "strong emotion and stress," which are "inherently incompatible with controlled scientific procedures." Josephson won a Nobel Prize in 1973, when he was only 33, and since then he has become an aggressive proponent of research on psychic phenomena. "Yes, I think telepathy exists," he told The Observer, a British newspaper, in 2001, "and I think quantum physics will help us understand its basic properties.""
http://blogs.scie...not-you/
The limits of science: individual perception.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
"A 1991 poll of members of the National Academy of Sciences found that only four percent believed in ESP (although 10 percent thought it was worth investigating). My guess is that many more scientists believe, at least tentatively, in paranormal phenomena, but they are loath to disclose their views for fear of harming their reputations—and even science as a whole."
"But how I wish that someone would find such proof! Unlike the boring, foregone conclusion of the Higgs boson, the discovery of telepathy or telekinesis would blow centuries of accumulated scientific dogma sky high. What could be more thrilling!"
http://blogs.scie...not-you/
strangedays
5 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
paranormal phenomena are real but lie outside the limits of science.


And that is the fundamental issue. If you don't have a framework for knowing stuff (science) - you can believe what every you want to. That is of course your privilege - to believe what every you want to. And there are dozens of free energy devices that you can get off the internet - that will make you a millionaire. Who needs science - right?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
Who needs science - right?

If science doesn't have the courage to push the envelope, how will it advance knowledge?
Of course, science can never provide all the answers to the universe.
It's good for strange to admit it.
strangedays
5 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
If science doesn't have the courage to push the envelope, how will it advance knowledge?


You don't know how science advances knowledge. That is very telling.

Of course science pushes the envelope - did you see the space x rocket that went down this week? That is pushing the envelope. But science uses a system for verifying knowledge. Based on your statement above - you do not understand that basic principle. You seem to think that it is OK to believe anything you want to believe - without verifying the knowledge with evidence. Science says - 'if there is no evidence for something - we cannot know if it exists or not'. Speculation is fine - but something is not known - until we have evidence. It is staggering to me that you can come to a SCIENCE web site - and not even understand the foundation of science.
strangedays
5 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
mikep
I like to think that I shed much needed light.


And does your insight have to be validated with evidence - or do we just have to accept your insight because you said so?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
Of course science pushes the envelope - did you see the space x rocket that went down this week?

That is engineering. Rocket science is well established.
but something is not known - until we have evidence

There can be much evidence, but science will refuse to address the evidence until they have a theory.
And with ghosts, there are very interesting personal accounts and video evidence, science will have a difficult time explaining this evidence without allowing for the possibility of souls. Better for science to just ignore or dismiss the data.

Acting on evidence without theory is engineering. Romans had no understanding of the science of cement. But they made it and used it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
"s Kant pointed out over 200 years ago, everything we experience – including all the colors, sensations and objects we perceive – are nothing but representations in our mind. Space and time are simply the mind's tools for putting it all together. Now, to the amusement of idealists, scientists are beginning dimly to recognize that those rules make existence itself possible. Indeed, the experiments above suggest that objects only exist with real properties if they are observed. The results not only defy our classical intuition, but suggest that a part of the mind – the soul – is immortal and exists outside of space and time."
http://www.psycho...says-yes
strangedays
5 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
That is engineering. Rocket science is well established.


You are so childish. The point is that we are pushing the boundaries of knowledge - using science and engineering. Those two fields overlap considerably - and some say they are pretty much the same thing. Posting your childish comment - without understanding the POINT being made is bizarre - you are just a baby.
strangedays
5 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2014
the soul – is immortal and exists outside of space and time.


Prove it - or all you have is meaningless words.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
the soul – is immortal and exists outside of space and time.


Prove it - or all you have is meaningless words.


It's a working theory made by a few with the courage to expand knowledge.

nd some say they are pretty much the same thing.

Don't know much about engineering?

I recommend A Discussion of the Method, by Koen.
http://www.me.ute...ory.html
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
"False balance can also be created by assuming that a person from outside the field (a non-expert) will somehow have a perspective that will shed light on an issue, that the real expert is too "caught up in the details" to be objective.

I like to think that I shed much needed light.

Mike P-
@Mikey
ONLY IF YOU CAN PROVE, by empirical means or by supporting empirical evidence, that your claims have some validity.

offering OPINIONS and other POV's is nothing but argument from ignorance
only when you can subject your own proof to the same rigors of science can it be considered valid or even reputable.

POST from a peer reviewed source with empirical evidence in a reputable journal with an impact in the subject and your conjecture will be taken seriously... otherwise it is no better than the fairy worshippers
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
"Engineering has no hint of the absolute, the deterministic, the guaranteed, the true. Instead it fairly reeks of the uncertain, the provisional and the doubtful. The engineer instinctively recognizes this and calls his ad hoc method "doing the best you can with what you've got," "finding a seat-of-the-pants solution," or just "muddling through". (Koen, 1985, p. 23)."
http://www.kitche...science/

If you know anything about rockets, heuristics, art are more useful than science.
The reason why is he same reason climate science is so difficult, the limits of computational fluid dynamics.

Look up this NATO document: "Unsteady Motions in Combustion
Chambers for Propulsion Systems"
Enjoy.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
That is engineering. Rocket science is well established.
@rygtard
if it was so well established, why was there a crash?
If science doesn't have the courage to push the envelope, how will it advance knowledge?
this comment right here proves more than ANY OTHER COMMENT you have EVER made that you have NO IDEA how the scientific method works

the ONLY WAY that science CAN advance is to PUSH THE ENVELOPE

where YOU seem to be hanging up is the whole PROOF thing
just because you SAY it, doesn't mean it is true
SCIENCE requires you to PROVE it
to provide empirical evidence and experiments that are replicable ... which means that if you FAIL to be able to reproduce the experiment, then it is NOT VALID (see Cold Fusion and Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in 1989)

it killed their career. for good reason
just because they SAID it worked but no one could reproduce the effects.

sorry Ryg-TROLL
you failed again
strangedays
5 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
It's a working theory made by a few with the courage to expand knowledge.


But as such - there is no evidence to support this theory - so it is just meaningless words.

You still miss the point about pushing the envelope. Physorg posts articles every day of research that is pushing the envelope of our understanding of our universe. You want to be childish - and split hairs about the difference between science and engineering. Why don't you read a quick discussion of the issue "There is considerable overlap between science and engineering" http://chemistry....neer.htm

And maybe you could try learning to read for meaning - instead of splitting hairs. The POINT is that scientists are pushing the envelope every minute.
Toiea
1 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
There is considerable overlap between science and engineering
This is just one of problems - contemporary physics is too focused on abstract problems, which have no utilization for the next hundred years. The simple and easy experiments like these ones don't attract anyone here. Everyone just wants to work around colliders or large detectors and to secure professional carrier for many years in advance. Everyone's is looking for a new physics, but its real life manifestations bother no one.
the POINT is that scientists are pushing the envelope every minute.
So does the evolution and/or technological progress. Even the Holy Church evolves. The slow pace connected with ideologically driven ignorance of apparent problems and findings is problem here.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
mikep
I like to think that I shed much needed light.


And does your insight have to be validated with evidence - or do we just have to accept your insight because you said so?

Strange,
I think that might have been an attempt at humor on Mikes part...:-)
strangedays
5 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
Probably Whydening - no big deal either way.

Thanks.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.