How much does your political ideology affect your acceptance of science?

Padawanbater2 said:

Mostly just rape threads

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

that would make sense for a rape apologist like desert rat.

did he threaten to put any more growers in federal prison today?

Click to expand...

desert dude said:

My bitches be bleatin'.

Click to expand...

reddan1981 said:

take my penis out of your mouth when you're speaking to me. Have you any children... Jahhahahahahaha you haven't have you? So you are impotent? Ahh, poor buck teeth this is where your penis envy comes from.

Click to expand...

reddan1981 said:

yes I think nanoscopic is an appropriate word. YOUR CHANCES OF HAVING CHILDREN, IS NANOSCOPIC.

Click to expand...

reddan1981 said:

children services are desperate for suitable homes for unwanted children..

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

I just read an old thread where members were asking me to conduct an "actual poll" of this question, so this is it

Lets see how much your political ideology affects your view and/or acceptance of *valid science
*valid science - science that has been peer reviewed and is internationally accepted as legitimate
*examples of valid science include:

-germ theory
-cell theory
-the theory of evolution
-the theory of gravity
-the theory of planetary motion
-information theory
-game theory
-oxygen theory of combustion
-special relativity
-general relativity
-quantum theory
-anthropogenic climate change
-statistical mechanics
-plate tectonics

Click to expand...

• It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
• It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
• It is consistent with pre-existing experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any pre-existing theories.
• It can be subjected to minor adaptations to account for new data that do not fit it perfectly, as they are discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
• It is among the most parsimonious explanations, economical in the use of proposed entities or explanatory steps. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)

desert dude said:

Which "theory" in your list does not fit these criteria?

Essential criteria
The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a scientific theory at all. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is not applicable.

A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it fulfills the following criteria:

• It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
• It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
• It is consistent with pre-existing experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any pre-existing theories.
• It can be subjected to minor adaptations to account for new data that do not fit it perfectly, as they are discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
• It is among the most parsimonious explanations, economical in the use of proposed entities or explanatory steps. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)

The first three criteria are the most important. Theories considered scientific meet at least most of the criteria, but ideally all of them. This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, the modern evolutionary synthesis, etc.

Click to expand...

desert dude said:

A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a scientific theory at all.

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

Each and every one of the scientific theories posted in the OP do

You deny it

Click to expand...

desert dude said:

One of the "theories" predicted a linear relationship of global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration. Atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased while global temperature has stalled for the last 17 years. When a theory's prediction is wrong, it casts doubt on the "theory".

AGW is an hypothesis at best.

You thump your chest and claim to be a "scientist", yet you fail to meet the very first standard of science: follow the evidence and let the evidence guide your conclusions.

Click to expand...

desert dude said:

One of the "theories" predicted a linear relationship of global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration. Atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased while global temperature has stalled for the last 17 years. When a theory's prediction is wrong, it casts doubt on the "theory".

AGW is an hypothesis at best.

You thump your chest and claim to be a "scientist", yet you fail to meet the very first standard of science: follow the evidence and let the evidence guide your conclusions.

Click to expand...

MuyLocoNC said:

Nun-uh, we got these models that we input flawed, cherry-picked data into and they say exactly what we want them to say. Ends justify the means, don'tcha know.

Maybe someone can post a tired chart that totally shows one guy whose model didn't predict ridiculous, extreme temperatures as an example that all the other ridiculous and flat wrong models were totally not the agenda-driven mechanisms of batshit crazy, liberal zealots. Maybe we can see that flaccid chart again for the umpteenth time.

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

The "no warming for 17 years" is a myth perpetrated by people who can't read a basic chart, every single credible scientific organization on Earth says so, only you and the deniers believe it (which is why the republicans in congress are fighting to defund the science that proves it)

New Study Provides More Evidence That Global Warming ‘Pause’ Is A Myth

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/25/3475168/global-warming-atlantic/

No, Global Warming Hasn't 'Stopped'

http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/no-global-warming-hasnt-stopped-121017.htm

Has Global Warming Paused?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/

You're scientifically illiterate if you look at that chart and conclude "No Warmingz for 17 yearses!!"

It goes from -.25 to .50 over the course of 235 years, an increase of .75. Do you know how to math? Is .75 more or less than -.25? Go try it yourself on a calculator and see what you get, is it a positive or negative number?

You are a lemming

Click to expand...

MuyLocoNC said:

Except for the fact I can find VAST, let me be clear on this point, VAST incidences of people that are on your side of this argument explaining and referencing the hiatus. I'm talking about figureheads of the movement, fuckers that the IPCC embraces. But, I guess they just haven't gotten the memo. Or, even though they're the very scientists in the "consensus" you always refer to, they just aren't as smart as you.

Please, please, please ask me for a citation. Because I love citing THOUSANDS of articles, videos, lectures that are out there in plain view and COMMON KNOWLEDGE.

But, they don't exist, right?

Click to expand...