The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: War on Science  (Read 13115 times)

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« on: 04/10/2007 16:59:46 »
>>Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday she would sign an executive order rescinding President Bush's restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/ap_po/clinton_science;_ylt=AgxkDomvUboYW6.8xkMOUjMiANEA

I think it is a war against science without purpose.


 

another_someone

  • Guest
War on Science
« Reply #1 on: 04/10/2007 18:17:17 »
You think Clinton's actions, or Bush's actions, are a war against science?
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #2 on: 04/10/2007 18:28:49 »
then? what do you make out of it?

"The Bush administration has declared war on science," the New York senator said. "When I am president, scientific integrity will not be the exception it will be the rule."

 

Offline Quantum_Vaccuum

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 135
  • The Base Of Chemistry
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #3 on: 04/10/2007 22:26:31 »
I can only wish that we'll have a president that will actuly help so much in global warming, i trully think it exists
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #4 on: 05/10/2007 04:43:26 »
Global Warming is another Lie which is propagated by scientists.
THERE IS NO PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING.
FALSE PROPAGANDA MACHINE THATS WHAT SCIENCE STANDS FOR>
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #5 on: 05/10/2007 07:51:56 »
Global Warming is another Lie which is propagated by scientists.
THERE IS NO PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING.
FALSE PROPAGANDA MACHINE THATS WHAT SCIENCE STANDS FOR>

Can you substantiate that? Are you suggesting, for instance, that the Greenland ice fields are not melting? Can you explain why the Thames flood barrier is now being raised 6 times a year rather than once every 6 years as was first intended if sea level is not higher?
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #6 on: 05/10/2007 08:43:50 »
Assume that the global warming is happening.

Q.How much rise in temperature took place in last 100 years ?
A.<1 Degree C on average ..infact in 2005-06 temperature globally wtook a dip ..In russia at certain places the temperature down to -15 C.
Q.How so we measure global warming ?
A.Environment is unstable and one must consider a suffcient long time period to analyze and compute the average increase in temperature and other facors like melting of ice.
Q.What was the time span used  to declare that the Global Warming is taking place?
A.In think some thousands years of data. Which may be incorrect...
Q.Is it not possible that Global Warming is part of Natural Cycle?
A.Yes.
Q.If Natural Cycle is a possibility then what makes you think that this "increase" is not natural but man made?
A.There is a coorelation between human progress and global warming which resulted in less than 1 degree Centigrade rise in temperature.
Q.Interesting. Since your annual average is for 100 years ... will it will take another 100 to verify?As I said in 2005-06 the temperatures went down.
A.Yes it will take time say anything for certainities.
Q.Uncertain and you are claiming scientificly that Progress is the cause of Global Warming?
A.Sorry.
Q.If the Global Warming is Natural then can how can one stop it?
A.I dont think it can be stopped.
Q.If it can not stopped then why are you raising the hue and cry?
A.SO THAT OTHERS CAN HELP US>

I offer a simple solution : Migrate to my country.
And stop crying.


 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #8 on: 06/10/2007 09:09:59 »
Assume that the global warming is happening.
 
Q.Is it not possible that Global Warming is part of Natural Cycle?
A.Yes.
Q.If Natural Cycle is a possibility then what makes you think that this "increase" is not natural but man made?

Q.Uncertain and you are claiming scientificly that Progress is the cause of Global Warming?
A.Sorry.
Q.If the Global Warming is Natural then can how can one stop it?
A.I dont think it can be stopped.
Q.If it can not stopped then why are you raising the hue and cry?
A.SO THAT OTHERS CAN HELP US>

I offer a simple solution : Migrate to my country.
And stop crying.




Your initial assertion was not about the cause of global warming, but that it is a lie. The average temperature of the planet is increasing - FACT. The climate is changing in many countries - FACT. Sea levels are rising - FACT. Ice sheets are melting - FACT.

Yes, the planet does go through periodic climate changes and if what we are seeing is part of a natural cycle then there is probably very little that can be done to stop it.

But, just stop for a minute to consider the possibility that it is you who is wrong and not the 99% of experts who have researched global warming. I appreciate that is very unlikely as you are the only 1 who knows what is really going on, but I think it's worth consideration.

Maybe the Earth is warming itself to sustain its pleasure!
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #9 on: 06/10/2007 09:25:06 »
If only I am correct then it does not mean I am wrong.
Statistically it means I have 1/n chances of being correct. There are so many facts which came out of
near zero probability.
Take for example the gene replciation theory.
If there is only one liveable Universe and there is only one habitable planet then
What are  the chances of finding a human being???
Since there are infinite number of possibilities therefore there was a very small chance for human being to manifest...



 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #10 on: 06/10/2007 09:45:25 »
The difference is that the "experts" have done research, they have published papers, their results have been scrutinised. You, on the other hand, just make statements that you have signally failed to provide any evidence for. I know who I would rather believe.
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #11 on: 06/10/2007 10:16:39 »
ok.So the criteria for acceptability is dependent on the insitution and its process. There are relgious institutions as well which scientists consider irrational just like the relgious men consider who consider science a farce.
More than 70% people believe in religion.If a fact is accepted by majority does it become a truth?
With the defintion of science I consider singular validations as as valid proposal and therefore reduce the nature of truth to statistics.
This solves the scrodinger's cat problem as well.
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
War on Science
« Reply #12 on: 06/10/2007 10:38:37 »
You're missing the point. The difference between your statements and those by scientific experts on particular topics is that their's are supported by EVIDENCE.

Religions do not concern themselves with evidence. In fact the majority of scientific evidence is against the teachings of religious dogma. Majority opinion does not make something true. What matters is the EVIDENCE.
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #13 on: 06/10/2007 11:00:23 »
evidence for what?
Evidence can be singular in nature.
But because evidence is singular in nature doesnt mean
it is false.
Singular dimensions of rationality can be valid as well.

 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #14 on: 06/10/2007 11:04:11 »
There was an interesting experiment in psychology :
A women never felt the pain or fear.
For her jumping from a cliff was a ordinary as walking on the streets.
Even the defintions of pain and pleasure can be relative...This is becuase Pleasure is also a chemical state mostly found during Sex.
Sometimes dreams can trigger pleasure.
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #16 on: 06/10/2007 20:17:48 »
If a fact is accepted by majority does it become a truth?


A fact is a fact is a fact regardless how many people believe it. That is the difference between science & religion - science deals with facts, hard evidence & verifiable predictions. Religion, on the other hand, contains no facts, only beliefs & faith.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #17 on: 06/10/2007 20:20:26 »
There was an interesting experiment in psychology :
A women never felt the pain or fear.
For her jumping from a cliff was a ordinary as walking on the streets.
Even the defintions of pain and pleasure can be relative...This is becuase Pleasure is also a chemical state mostly found during Sex.
Sometimes dreams can trigger pleasure.


And that is supposed to prove what? What that says to me, as a psychologist, is that the part of her brain that registers fear was not working. That may be the result of brain damage or faulty genes. How does that relate to a "war on science" or dreams bringing pleasure?

And in what way is the example you gave an experiment? What did the experiment involve? What was their methodology? Who conducted it? Where? When? What hypothesis were they trying to prove? Did they succeed?

Was it the researchers who stopped her brain registering fear? I can't believe that to be the case as it would fly in the face of every ethic known to research.

And as for the link in your subsequent post, can you explain the relevance to this thread of a church objecting to a gay funeral?
« Last Edit: 06/10/2007 20:26:40 by DoctorBeaver »
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
War on Science
« Reply #18 on: 06/10/2007 20:42:48 »
Can everyone please note how well i have been to steer clear of this and other "interesting" topics. I think i deserve a round of applause.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #19 on: 06/10/2007 21:45:31 »
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
War on Science
« Reply #20 on: 06/10/2007 21:46:58 »


I thank you, takes a bow, soaks up the adulation...still would have been nice to contribute though, but i fear my responce would not have lasted too long.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #21 on: 06/10/2007 21:48:49 »


I thank you, takes a bow, soaks up the adulation...still would have been nice to contribute though, but i fear my responce would not have lasted too long.

Would I be correct in assuming that the second word of your 2-word reply would have been "off"?
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
War on Science
« Reply #22 on: 06/10/2007 22:29:44 »
Would I be correct in assuming that the second word of your 2-word reply would have been "off"?

But in a more polite, accronim based fashion.
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #23 on: 07/10/2007 07:31:05 »
Quote
And that is supposed to prove what?
From current evolutionary point of view nothing.:-))
Thats what the replication theory says.
There is no purpose which can be known from the troll
of species.
Anways the thread tries to differentiate between religion and science. Homosexuality which is for pleasure is opposed by Religion and Modern governments are finding it hard to believe the science. There are no new findings but only theories. Science is appearing to become like religion.
=======================================
Quote
What that says to me, as a psychologist, is that the part of her brain that registers fear was not working. That may be the result of brain damage or faulty genes. How does that relate to a "war on science" or dreams bringing pleasure?
Indeed fear is a chemical state as well. But I dont think one learn to induce courage... the brain has high  plasticity... only a Natural process can remove fear or produce fear in a sustainable way.
Same applies to pleasure..
==================================
Quote
And in what way is the example you gave an experiment? What did the experiment involve? What was their methodology? Who conducted it? Where? When? What hypothesis were they trying to prove? Did they succeed?
This experiment was performed in US by renowned neurologists.The purpose was to demonstrate plasticity of brain. But they found a contradiction.
This women managed to develop courage without any external means.
================================
Quote
Was it the researchers who stopped her brain registering fear? I can't believe that to be the case as it would fly in the face of every ethic known to research.
No researchers were able to recreate in other beings.
It was a natural state .. and in principle brain has tremendous amount of plasticity... If left brain stops functioning the right brain learns the functions of left.

======================================
Quote
And as for the link in your subsequent post, can you explain the relevance to this thread of a church objecting to a gay funeral?
We see a clear case of violation of human rights.
The gay died with a desire to promote gayism ... but the relgious people did not accept the funeral.

=====================================
We need to collect more evidence in favour of Evolution towards sustainable pleasure.
The latest which apparently being asked in the evolutionary circle is:
Why different rates of evolution?
Why it took so much time to evolve?
Both questions are not supported by evidence.

 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
War on Science
« Reply #24 on: 07/10/2007 08:54:13 »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

War on Science
« Reply #24 on: 07/10/2007 08:54:13 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums