Everything mentioned above is nonsensical...conspiracy...untrue...which means nothing you mention above falls into the category of science. And this is fine with me for people to have their faith or opinion or beliefs...just don't try to pawn them off as either challenging science or replacing science...
You really don’t know What you’re talking about. You’re confusing theories in science with theorems in math. Theorems are math statements that are proven true under a certain set of limited conditions. They are no variables in the contrived limits of the math statements used in their proofs. Theories in science always retain variability because unlike the math universe which is limited, the universe Of science is open ended and theories evolve and modify depending upon the evidence....it’s consensus that determines the final working model to be used. they are..”an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.. they are repeatable with a certain level of confidence. They are neither right or wrong.....they are repeatable outcomes. Yours are contrived self absorbed opinions derived from the conspiratorial world of an orange manic’s .....a Chinese hoax’s.
This is where you’re totally delusional. The starting point is a hypothesis not a theory. Only AFTER experimentation enough to bring it to a consensus does it reach beyound a hypothesis. . Unlike you, science IS NEVER so bold to declare anything absolute....you seem to consider yourself so smart, as to be god like. People should be embarrassed to think they are superior to the scientific method which is the essence of humility.
After all, the stable geniuses of the world are so well informed. You know more about science, then real scientists at NASA. You’re amazing.
So, not only do you know more science more then every university, you wrote your own dictionary too. Amazing., Science is theories ? Woo woo......you do spout woo woo.
Inversion Fallacy. No I'm not. I'm not talking about math at all. Theories are not alive. They do not evolve. They do not modify. Science is not a model, and it does not use supporting evidence nor does it use consensus. You are confusing science with religion. RAAA.
Insult Fallacy. WRONG. You cannot form a hypothesis without first having a theory (explanatory argument). You are confusing science with religion. Science does not make use of consensus. Consensus does not "make holy" any theory. Insult Fallacy. Now you are out of arguments, and are simply resorting to repetition and insults.
You simply have not taken the time to understand, and respect, the discipline of science. There is no such thing as 'right or wrong'! What exists is what we know 'today' based on the adherence, structure and technology of scientific process. The results 'are not' finite! Everything we know today is subject to new information and new results into the future. Every scientist has their own 'personal' feelings and opinions about science, however, until their views are put through the scientific process in order to challenge the status quo, they will remain 'feelings and opinions'...or more technically this is a hypothesis. This is why the discipline of science is so critical to mankind; it separates a disciplined rigorous process from 'feelings and opinions'. It is not fathomable to me that a technologically advanced society will let their future be guided by 'feelings and opinions'...
That is true if you mean theory in the non-scientific sense. In the non-scientific sense, a theory of an explanation someone thinks up, and doesn't need to have any evidence. The scientific definition of a theory requires a massive amount of evidence, and start as hypothesis. Here is the problem. Who gets to decide what is officially scientifically true and belongs in the science textbooks? Think about ideas such as the theory of gravity, relativity, atomic theory, and DNA. You might say that we should decide based on the evidence. But people can have very different opinions about the evidence. Who are the people who decide what theories have sufficient evidence to be considered worthy of being considered facts about the world? My opinion is that the best way is to look at the experts in a scientific field and if there is an overwhelming consensus, then we accept it as a fact. Can this be wrong sometimes? Sure, but it is far less error prone than any other approach.
If a theory is a perfect explanation for the world, then you are right that it doesn't need to evolve at all. But most of the time, even though our explanations are correct about the basic picture, there might be some details the theory missed. For example, Newton's theory of gravity was actually wrong about some things, and Einstein's theory of relativity used the idea of space-time to produce more accurate results. But now we have a problem that the theory of relativity works on the large scale, and quantum mechanics works on the small scale, but we don't know exactly why and are looking for a theory that unites both. Or with atomic theory, we started out with simple explanations of atoms, but not our knowledge has gotten more intricate with quarks and parts of quarks that make up atoms as well. There are always details in science we don't know and often cases where theories that usually work, stop working, and we need to define and try to explain those too. This is what is meant by a theory evolving, it means the theory is becoming even more accurate.
This claim is a bit surprising to me. For example one piece of evidence we have of planets around other stars, is that we observe the light of these stars, and if that light dims at regular intervals, then there must be a planet orbiting it. This is supporting evidence.
Theory means the same thing whether talking about science or not. A theory is simply an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. This is true whether talking about science or not. Define "massive". That is subjective language that is not quantifiable. Just how much evidence is "enough"? Science doesn't make use of supporting evidence btw; it only makes use of conflicting evidence. You can't form a hypothesis unless a theory already exists to form that hypothesis from. This is only a problem under what you are calling "science". It is a problem because what you are calling "science" is actually religion. Science is not a consensus, a university, a holy book, etc... It is simply a set of falsifiable theories. Any theory which survives internal testing (against logic) and a single external test (against a null hypothesis) automatically becomes a theory of science. The very moment that conflicting evidence falsifies a theory is the very moment that the theory is completely and utterly destroyed and is no longer a theory of science. No. Science does not make use of supporting evidence. No amount of supporting evidence blesses, sanctifies, or otherwise makes holy any theory of science. Precisely. That's why there are an innumerable amount of religions in existence today. Religious theories cannot move beyond being a simple circular argument, so the most one can do is throw supporting evidence at them. A theory of science, on the other hand, CAN move beyond being a simple circular argument because null hypothesis testing can be performed on it. Good question. You seem to think that NASA, NOAA, and other agencies have this "magick power"... Why is that? Also, facts are not universal truths nor are they proofs. Facts are simply assumed predicate. Who are the "experts"? What makes them "experts"? After all, people can have very different opinions about the evidence, as you said earlier... Define "overwhelming"... There's that subjective unquantifiable language again... Science does not use consensus. Religion and politics do... Not what a fact is. See above. No, you are describing religion, not science.
Another example of 'anti-science' has presented itself, in current events. The corona virus. When the pandemic was just beginning, Trump decided, from recommendations from medical and science experts, to close travel with China. It was an extreme measure, that was evidently based on sound scientific projection. The facts: The Corona virus had no vaccine. The virus was highly contagious. The mortality rate was high. Isolation and reduced exposure can limit its transmission. Based on these facts, the administration closed travel with China. But to progressive indoctrinees, this was 'racism!!' They believed that Political Correctness, and Virtue Signaling would override the facts and science behind this decision, and they all began attacking Trump for racism. They clung to their beliefs, and did not examine the facts objectively. Italy had some 'Hug a Chinaman!' celebrations, to mock the informed, scientific based decision to ban travel to/from China. The anti-science, anti-American media piled on with ridicule and smears, when they obviously lacked the information or data for an informed conclusion. Their anti-science BELIEFS, conflicted with medical and scientific reality, but they clung to their beliefs.. for a while.. until it became painfully obvious that this pandemic was serious.. deadly serious. The State mandated, media affirmed, anti-science propaganda often conflicts with observable reality and the scientific method. If and when there is a conflict, progressive indoctrinees cling to their beliefs, and avoid science and reason, if they can, to our own destruction. This confirms the observation from the OP, posted 6 years ago: "Now, we are in a time of anti science. Social issues & cultural manipulation is taking place, of course claiming truth or science as a basis. But instead of open scrutiny, mandates. Instead of the scientific method, decree. Instead of logic & critical thinking, truth is declared & propaganda has become the new goal. Truth becomes what the establishment says, rather than something based on reason or facts. Critical thinking is not encouraged, just memorized dogma. History is not taught as dispassionate facts, but to mold a belief. Conclusions are presupposed, & memorized, instead of arrived at by research & thinking. THIS is the greatest failure of American education, which once was a beacon of classic liberal thought.. Now, it is just another state propaganda tool."
Obviously you have never debated, science, philosophy, art, (insert favourite topic here) with a Jesuit.
Always has to be politics?? There was little to NO resistance to stop travel from China. American Airlines, Delta and United, the primary carriers to China, had already shut down service to China. You call these facts; The Corona virus had no vaccine. The virus was highly contagious. The mortality rate was high. Isolation and reduced exposure can limit its transmission. but unfortunately Trump does not consider facts? The proof lies in the words you presented; If Trump truly considered FACTS, which you should read in today's context, these facts you present DICTATE to any sane person that today there should be NO consideration to force everything back to normal by Easter egg hunt time! The four FACTS you mention remain today so how do you validate Trump's propensity to IGNORE these FACTS and return the nation to normalcy in time to hunt for Easter eggs? Your FACTS above actually dictate that the entire nation should be on lock down!!
Fact check, outside of a narrow subset of the population i.e. the aged (70 plus) those with suppressed immune systems or some other severe underlying medical condition the death rate is very low to almost non-existent.Including those groups depending on the sample group its still in the 1 to 2 percent rate or just above. The Spanish flu death rate seems to have been around 2.5% but predominantly struck down the children and people up into their 30's. SARS was 15% or more. I won't go on putting together a list of the worlds deadliest viruses (anyone can look those up for themselves) nor am I trying to minimize the seriousness of the current outbreak. Point is the mortality rate isn't so much the issue with Covid as is the fact its highly contagious with 20-30 % of those infected displaying limited to no symptoms. This makes it extremely hard to contain. That, when combined the limited supply of specialized medical equipment needed to support seriously ill victims and an aging population is the big problem. Also have to refute any evidence of any significant opposition (by 'progressive indoctrinates' or anyone else) to the travel bans. On that I call BS. Finally out of curiosity in your world view are their any progressives that aren't 'indoctrinates'? I suspect not so, if true in future just use the word 'progressive' and everyone will know what you mean.
Wrong. While a hypothesis can be performed to test underlying elements of a Theory, a hypothesis can be constructed without a theory. It provides the means for testing. The results of testing a hypothesis or multiple hypotheses may lead to developing an expiation based on test results, which then often involves more questions leading to new hypotheses, that are designed to test if an explanatory model can be generalized and tested for it’s ability to predict. Here’s a good generalized article about the scientific method. https://www.sciencealert.com/what-e...method-and-why-do-so-many-people-get-it-wrong
Being human the scientist who came up with a theory and whose academic career was built around his theory as he also became a successful author is the hardest person to accept new evidence that would null and void his theory. One reason science can move ahead at the pace of tombstones . Also many men in science dont exhibit the certainty that fans of science have and tout. The fans of science seldom unferstand how the science of academia actually works out. For at times the human element can corrupt even science. The fans call this a conspiracy theory. For they lack the inside view and are idealistic .
This is an extremist view. The tombstone idea CAN be a problem in some cases, as (for example) a professor who studied "string theory" is likely to lead PhD candidates toward "string theory". But, one big reason that's possible is that it's entirely theoretical - with essentially zero evidence. So, experimental science isn't even applicable! Thus, killing string theory has been hard, for example. In areas where experimental science methods ARE applicable and wher ethe subject is important (like climate), there is a whole world of scientists. Plus, every physicist is required to do original research that advances the world of physics as one requirement for earning a PhD. These people are NOT interested in being toadies. Being wrong can be career ending. And, there is no leader of world science. So, the tombstone idea is FAR less applicable. If someone in the US managed to slow the study of climate, other nations, other universities, other groups like NOAA and NASA aren't just going to cooperate. They have NO reason to do that. And, science depends on independent verification and other methods of identifying and eliminating mistakes - regardless of the author.
