"Independent Thinking" vs Appeal To Authority In Science
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Calculating the spectra and intensity of Helium, Lithium and Beryllium using only Rydberg-like formulas
Next: 'Plutonium' as a surname
From: Benj on 31 Jul 2010 08:41 On Jul 21, 2:57 am, BDR529 <nos...(a)nospam.org> wrote: > On 7/20/2010 10:22 PM, Benj wrote: > > See? It's HOT this summer! We TOLD you you needed to be scared! > > And it is going to be so hot that all AGW deniers melt. Noting use of words "AGW" and "Deniers". Constituting solid proof that you are making this a political debate with nothing to do with science. Real scientific debate does not use terms like "debates with pigs". The only proof of science is hypothesis validated by verifiable data. Name-calling. Game-playing. Appeals to authority (usually controlled by side in question). Proof by assertion. All this is from the realm of politics. And all this is exactly what AGW is all about: Politics = Money.
From: Excognito on 31 Jul 2010 09:22 On 31 July, 13:41, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > Real scientific debate does not use terms like "debates with pigs". As a relative newcomer to this forum, I am forced, by the content of this and some other forums, to conclude that 'real' scientific debate does involve, and has always involved, content that deviates from the theoretical scholastic norm. I think this link sums it up quite nicely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UMedd03JCA > The only proof of science is hypothesis validated by verifiable data. > Name-calling. Game-playing. Appeals to authority (usually controlled > by side in question). Proof by assertion. All this is from the realm > of politics. And all this is exactly what AGW is all about: Politics = > Money.
From: leonard78sp on 31 Jul 2010 09:44 On Jul 18, 3:15 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Of course ETs are here. Seriously, where else would Semites like > Zionists/Jews and those cute little Dropa/Dzopa wizards have come > from? > Ø BG why would a fascist jackass persist in demonstrating his ignorance. There are three types of people that you can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil. 1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the logic of what you say. You have to tell them what is right in very simple terms. If they do not agree, you will never be able to change their mind. 2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes against their religious belief, they will cling to that belief even if it means their death. 3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a million years. There is no way to convince anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists, terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and predators to change their evil ways, They knew what they were doing was wrong, but knowledge didn't stop them. It only made them more careful in how they went about performing their evil deeds.
From: leonard78sp on 31 Jul 2010 10:01 On Jul 20, 10:17 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I am poking around for a peer review of experiments that show that > "Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit > radiation within the thermal infrared range." Thats all that is > required to smash the weak argument about peer reviews. Most "basic > physics" is easily established with peer reviews. Don't you guys know > any basic physics and thermodynamics, man your setting yourselves up > for a big fall on this simplistic argument. Ø ROTFLMAO: It is nice of you to admit your ignorance. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas Ø In the past year wikipedia has been re-edited and became an AGW alarmist site of no value.
From: leonard78sp on 31 Jul 2010 10:12
On Jul 31, 9:22 am, Excognito <stuartbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As a relative newcomer to this forum, I am forced, by the content of > this and some other forums, to conclude that 'real' scientific debate > does involve, and has always involved, content that deviates from the > theoretical scholastic norm. > "I have never before witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report." **Fredrik Seitz, former chairman of the American Science Academy |