• There seems to be an up tick in Political commentary in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site we know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religiours commentary out of the fourms.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politicion will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment amoung members. It is a poison to the community. We apprciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

'An Upper Layer Of Earth's Atmosphere Has Collapsed'

Wing_Z said:
James you are too pessimistic:
There are already 4 million US patents in force on human genome sequences (almost as many as all other patents put together).

Having basic knowledge in private hands can skew the outcomes. For example, most gene therapy products are being designed to be administered repeatedly rather than as one-time cures (This is clearly better for business). The pharm companies can do this because they own the rights to the basic science. Anybody coming up with a one-time cure will hit a legal wall.

Climate Science is subject to similar agendas... the only real defence is to back public spending on basic science to prevent it being highjacked.
Click to expand...

I'd be very interested to know where that four million figure came from, Wing Z. It would fit in to some other things I'm doing. If you could shoot me a link I'd really appreciate it.

JAMES
 
The thermosphere is supposed to contract and expand due to solar activity. This is the worst in 43 years due to increased levels CO2? Then stop cutting down more of the rainforest. It's a no brainer.
 
Ken Stallings said:
Perhaps it is time science agrees again -- as it used to -- that there are things they do not understand and simply leave it at that vice try to insert a theory with grossly insufficient knowledge to make the theory reasonable.

Ken
Click to expand...

Sorry Ken, I cannot agree with that. The idea that, "Well, we don't know how or why it happens, so let's just leave it at that" is unacceptable.

The whole idea of science is to discuss, investigate and learn how and why things happen.

More study is needed, not a hands-off, we just don't know why approach.
 
Reread Ken's post.

Put the focus on avoiding forcing an explanation onto a phenomena when a good rigorous explanation can't be found.

I don't get the sense that current scientific practice employs the same rigor that engineering or even farming are compelled to observe. A error in engineering design for an aerospace vehicle will be rewarded with disastrous consequence. Sloppy integrated circuit design will lead to failed electronics devices. Bad crop genetics leads to failed corn or wheat crop.

The "applied" fields face direct, immediate and possibly dire consequences when they take shortcuts.

Contemporary science on the other hand appears like they feel compelled to provide explanations even when they'd be more accurate to say that there's not a good reason at this time.

Sorry, modern "Science" has been provided the technological tools to measure phenomena for which they have no adequate, full, and rigorous explanation. More honest for the scientific community to cop to it and say so.

My 2 cents.
 
java2srv said:
Reread Ken's post.

Put the focus on avoiding forcing an explanation onto a phenomena when a good rigorous explanation can't be found.
Click to expand...


It's the "can't" in this sentence that I find dodgy. There's "can't be found," and then there's "can't be found yet," or "can be found but won't get funded," or "can be found but people [for their own reasons] don't like what might be found, so claim it can't be found." A concept I'm really interested in is that of fact rejection, essentially why do people embrace some things as factual and dismiss others. I'm certain everyone does a certain amount of reality shopping; IMO that's just human nature, but that's all I'm prepared to say at this time.

JAMES
 
Eoraptor1 said:
It's the "can't" in this sentence that I find dodgy. There's "can't be found," and then there's "can't be found yet," or "can be found but won't get funded," or "can be found but people [for their own reasons] don't like what might be found, so claim it can't be found." A concept I'm really interested in is that of fact rejection, essentially why do people embrace some things as factual and dismiss others. I'm certain everyone does a certain amount of reality shopping; IMO that's just human nature, but that's all I'm prepared to say at this time.

JAMES
Click to expand...

Thanks James - glad you saw it the same way. :)
 
Eoraptor1 said:
It's the "can't" in this sentence that I find dodgy. There's "can't be found," and then there's "can't be found yet," or "can be found but won't get funded," or "can be found but people [for their own reasons] don't like what might be found, so claim it can't be found." A concept I'm really interested in is that of fact rejection, essentially why do people embrace some things as factual and dismiss others. I'm certain everyone does a certain amount of reality shopping; IMO that's just human nature, but that's all I'm prepared to say at this time.

JAMES
Click to expand...



Exactly. Most people go through their lives imagining their existance and the circumstances that surround them in a light favorable to their version of how the world should work.
 
CybrSlydr said:
Sorry Ken, I cannot agree with that. The idea that, "Well, we don't know how or why it happens, so let's just leave it at that" is unacceptable.

The whole idea of science is to discuss, investigate and learn how and why things happen.

More study is needed, not a hands-off, we just don't know why approach.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

I never advocated a "hand's off approach," nor do I say science should not investigate, measure, experiment, and report findings.

What I am saying is that science should get back to the conservative scientific methods which ensured no theories were discussed in the public until the weight of scientific discovery supported the statements.

Ken
 
Ken Stallings said:
I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

I never advocated a "hand's off approach," nor do I say science should not investigate, measure, experiment, and report findings.

What I am saying is that science should get back to the conservative scientific methods which ensured no theories were discussed in the public until the weight of scientific discovery supported the statements.

Ken
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And cherry-picking temperature data, then feeding it into a computer program that has data embedded in the code to obtain the desired results, is not valid evidence to support a theory.

I was watching some of the Cosmos series with the late Carl Sagan on youtube recently. It was a re-release of the original series, with updates or prologs by Sagan. In one of the episodes, he states that global warming was confirmed by computer programs which were able to correctly predict the climate on other planets. Yeah, whatever.... :wiggle:

-James
 
Ken Stallings said:
I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

I never advocated a "hand's off approach," nor do I say science should not investigate, measure, experiment, and report findings.

What I am saying is that science should get back to the conservative scientific methods which ensured no theories were discussed in the public until the weight of scientific discovery supported the statements.

Ken
Click to expand...

Ok, then yes, I did misunderstand. :)

That I can totally agree with.
 
Eoraptor1 said:
I get really frustrated at the number of people I meet with post-graduate degrees who don't know what scientific method even is. I was taught that in middle school. I also meet quite a few very intelligent people who really don't know the difference between a scientific theory and the word 'theory' as used in common parlance. They have no idea as to the process. I am similarly leery as to how the media reports science; in what little discussion their is, I see a lot of confirmation bias. The various networks know through their market research who their audience is, and what they want to hear about the world. That is how they make their money.

Now, the reason this matters to me is that we have some VERY heavy scientific issues coming to fruition, that we'd BETTER get a handle on, before the next generation of political demogogues do it for us. I honestly believe that I'll see in my lifetime attempts to privatize segments of the human geome. To understand the ethical implications of that, you really need to have some idea of what a geome is.

JAMES
Click to expand...

Amen Brother. Evolution, Global warming, they're "just theories". So is Gravity. But I wouldn't bet against it.
 
Not really sure I'm completely understanding what you're saying IRT evolution (fact) and global warming (depends on who you talk to/who's koolaid you drink), Ghostrider, but what James is posting is really spot on.
 
The point of my post is that all three of those "theories", and yes, they are all theories - evolution, global warming, and universal gravitational attraction, are theories which have been proven to a degree that the likelihood of their being wrong approaches zero. Notice I said approaches zero. Those discussions are too complex to ever be completely proven beyond any shadow of doubt in anyone's mind, so technically, they remain "theories". Theories which are accepted as fact by the mainstream scientific community, and most people who do not have a problem with reality.

People who are not scientifically trained will throw out the word "theory" like it just means someone's unproven idea, or guess. "It's just a theory!" They exclaim. "It hasn't been proven!"

Hence, my statement - "Gravity's just a theory too, but I wouldn't bet against it."
 
Ghostrider said:
The point of my post is that all three of those "theories", and yes, they are all theories - evolution, global warming, and universal gravitational attraction, are theories which have been proven to a degree that the likeliehood of their being wrong approaches zero. Notice I said approaches zero. Those discussions are too complex to ever be completely proven beyond any shadow of doubt in anyone's mind, so technically, they remain "theories". Theories which are accepted as fact by the mainstream scientific community, and most people who do not have a problem with reality.

People who are not scientifically trained will throw out the word "theory" like it just means someone's unproven idea, or guess. "It's just a theory!" They exclaim. "It hasn't been proven!"

Hence, my statement - "Gravity's just a theory too, but I wouldn't bet against it."
Click to expand...

Ok - thanks for the clarification. :)
 
Ken Stallings said:
I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

What I am saying is that science should get back to the conservative scientific methods which ensured no theories were discussed in the public until the weight of scientific discovery supported the statements.

Ken
Click to expand...

This is an unfortunate result of our connected, media driven, information saturated society. Science can become politicized. And when science collides with people making money, they don't want to hear it. For the most part, they only want to hear about new ways to make money for themselves. Sad commentary on our species.
 
I do believe gravity is a theory. In part from the fact that I've seen a ball roll uphill from a dead stop. Also I have seen water flow up hill.... and not because of the force of it flowing downhill either. All the while this was happening, everyone observing was leaning in the same direction so as not to fall down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top