Why don't Republican officials accept science? 3 examples..

[cannabineer]

lol, I realize that, and I almost put this instead:

"If a theory changes itself, it is not longer the same theory. If Nazi's suddenly decided that whatever the Democrats were doing was the right thing to do, would they still be Nazi's? No, they would be socialists, and that would be a new theory for them. Get it? "

The Nazi's considered themselves socialists, but I wouldn't consider the Democrats to be the same as the Nazis at this time and I changed it to democrats because while they are socialist, they aren't quite the same as of yet. I wasn't trying to compare the two, I was just making a point about theories.

I still say theory is a word best kept with science, while ideology is the appropriate word for sociopolitical (almost wrote "lolitical", lol) edifices. cn

 

[Carthoris]

There is a distinction between scientific theory and sociopolitical ideology. cn

Once a theory changes parts of itself, it has proven itself to be wrong and discredited. Then a new theory with parts of the old one is made. They might call it the same thing, but it is a new theory.

 

[Heisenberg]

Science is like economics. They come up with a theory, test it, and use skewed proof to try to turn it into fact.

This tells me you do not understand the basic steps of the scientific method. If this were the way science worked, we would have never traveled to the moon, put satellites in space, cured disease, lengthened life expectancy, ect. Are you saying that science simply guessed right in these areas?

There is a reason that evolution and AGW are THEORIES and not FACTS. I believe evolution is true, and AGW could be true, but that doesn't make them facts. I also believe that climate changes of late could simply be the world shifting on its own, it doesn't make that a fact either.

A theory can run the gamut from having been thoroughly disproved to being thoroughly verified. A theory never graduates to a fact, which is why we do not call it "The fact of gravity". The best theories will have considerable explanatory power, considerable empirical evidence, and considerable ability to make correct predictions. Evolution easily meets those criteria.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

 

[Carthoris]

ohh bunny... dont buy farmer's cheeses or "100% natural organic" cheese unless it is also marked vegan.

we do still use rennet, the synthetic rennet substitutes are falling out of favour due to their "artificial" nature and the need to ensure that everything is "organic"

exercise caution in the dairy aisle

My wife found out what gelatin was made from when she was reading about jelly, lol.

 

[Heisenberg]

Once a theory changes parts of itself, it has proven itself to be wrong and discredited. Then a new theory with parts of the old one is made. They might call it the same thing, but it is a new theory.

It's an updated theory. There is nothing wrong with adjusting a theory based on new information. In fact, that is the appropriate thing to do. Would you feel better if they labeled it "Evolution Theory v1.9" or something? Can you name one theory which did not need adjustment before it was accepted?

 

[Carthoris]

the poor germans . . .were they forced to provide and give back which they took . . . . .its called reparations . . . for the atrocities that happened previously

Never mentioned reparations. We murdered more Germans than they murdered Jews in much the same way. Hell, we even gave 4 million slaves to Russia from the Germans we captured so they could torture and murder them for over 10 years. It had nothing to do with reparations. This was American food policy towards Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_food_policy_in_occupied_Germany

You could actually read about it and try to fill in the vast gaps of ignorance that you currently have or you could just keep spouting off about something you didn't realize existed until a few minutes ago when I told you it did. Either way.

 

[Dr Kynes]

My wife found out what gelatin was made from when she was reading about jelly, lol.

i assume you know of the glory of Pectin though yes?

and really for most thickening i use tapioca or corn starch. gelatin never seemed quite right to me.

 

[Dr Kynes]

It's an updated theory. There is nothing wrong with adjusting a theory based on new information. In fact, that is the appropriate thing to do. Would you feel better if they labeled it "Evolution Theory v1.9" or something? Can you name one theory which did not need adjustment before it was accepted?

marxism.

they still run the same old drag with only cosmetic changes for re-branding purposes.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Doc,
You should try arrowroot. It doesn't add a starchy taste like tapioca or corn starch.

 

[Carthoris]

If you believe that you're in a complete state of delusion. Abortion will be "regulated out of existence"? And yet...



So when the courts allow it, it's not based on constitutional powers, but when they ban it, it is? Can't be both..

Yes, it certainly can. The SCOTUS cannot allow or ban abortion based on the constitution. States have different rights under the constitution. The constitution is a positive document in that it tells the Federal Government what it CAN do, not what it CANNOT do. It can only do the things the constitution says it can do and nothing more legally. The states and the people have all the rest of the power. I do not believe the SCOTUS has the power to ban abortion unless they first define a fetus as a person which would then ban it automatically as it would be considered murder which is already illegal. Stop trying to make the arguments match your counter argument. It doesn't work well.

Theory and fact have different meanings in a scientific context. A theory is a collection of observable facts - the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, germ theory, cell theory, atomic theory, etc. All theories, all backed up by facts, also all accepted by 99% of the scientific community and academic institutions worldwide.

Theories that are backed by facts can be refuted by 1 instance of proving that it isn't true. Theories are a lot like God. There is no proof that he doesn't exist, therefor he is a theory unless you can PROVE him. Theories are things that are not proved, therefor are not facts. Aside from that, what you just said is basically what I said the difference was. Don't repeat my post, claim it as your own, and pretend it is in conflict with my original post.

You don't understand the theory of evolution which is why you don't accept it, bottom line. It's validity doesn't require your acceptance. You stand next to the religious fanatics and pseudoscience wingnuts in calling it a lie. With people like rep. Broun.

If evolution was a lie, modern biology wouldn't make any sense at all. You'd have to throw out nearly every measurable advancement in medicine, as vaccines rely on the theory of evolution to work correctly, diseases mutate over time, exactly as evolution predicts, and scientists alter the vaccines accordingly. Why would they need to do this if the germ was always exactly the same? They adapt and evolve, just like 100% of living organisms.

How do scientists know exactly where to search for past organisms based on the time they existed and the anatomical features they had if the theory of evolution wasn't true? They can pinpoint locations with known dates of rocks, look in the records to see what type of animal lived earlier and later than the rocks, then search those exact rocks for an animal in the middle, which they've done, dozens of times. If evolution was a lie, scientists would be digging completely blind and not find a single fossil they're looking for.

If evolution was a lie, there would be no way to explain any of that.

Like I said, you simply don't understand it enough to accept it. Anyone who does accepts it outright because it is glaringly obvious, as obvious as humans breathe oxygen and drink water.

Evolution was around long before Darwin. Darwin mostly just added 'natural selection' to the theory. If there is a God, evolution could just be his way of designing things. If time doesn't exist for God, then you figure he really wouldn't notice it. Not that I believe in such things, just throwing it out there.

 

[cannabineer]

marxism.

they still run the same old drag with only cosmetic changes for re-branding purposes.

... not a theory. cn

 

[Carthoris]

you can acquire these devices from veterinary supply shops.

warning, not for use on your butthole unless you got a size 15 poopchute. plus youll just shoot your seed as soon as it is inserted and turned on, thats what they are designed for.

of course the ones used to kill critters for fur or science are different. i never used one of those. plus on thosem comfort and painless extraction afterwards is not a concern.

mind the barbs!

Wouldn't you still have an orgasm?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Yes, it certainly can. The SCOTUS cannot allow or ban abortion based on the constitution. States have different rights under the constitution. The constitution is a positive document in that it tells the Federal Government what it CAN do, not what it CANNOT do. It can only do the things the constitution says it can do and nothing more legally. The states and the people have all the rest of the power. I do not believe the SCOTUS has the power to ban abortion unless they first define a fetus as a person which would then ban it automatically as it would be considered murder which is already illegal. Stop trying to make the arguments match your counter argument. It doesn't work well.

The Constitution says nothing about the internet, piracy, copyrights, and a whole host of other things that hadn't been imagined when it was written, yet the Supreme Court has plenty of rulings regarding such things, so what exactly are you talking about?

The Supreme Court will never define a fetus as a person because that categorization is incorrect according to millions of medical professionals. People have tried and they never win.

Theories that are backed by facts can be refuted by 1 instance of proving that it isn't true. Theories are a lot like God. There is no proof that he doesn't exist, therefor he is a theory unless you can PROVE him. Theories are things that are not proved, therefor are not facts. Aside from that, what you just said is basically what I said the difference was. Don't repeat my post, claim it as your own, and pretend it is in conflict with my original post.

Wrong. Theories that are backed up by facts can be altered given new information, this is in fact exactly how science works. It's a constant process. It takes quite a bit for an accepted theory in science to be completely thrown out, I can't even think of one off the top of my head that has been in nearly 400 years, and it's usually because of simple ignorance, not some groundbreaking discovery that completely changes the way we think.

"God" is not a theory, it's a belief, a belief accepted by the majority of it's believers that it's believed based on faith, not fact. Faith, by it's very definition, is factless.

Evolution was around long before Darwin. Darwin mostly just added 'natural selection' to the theory. If there is a God, evolution could just be his way of designing things. If time doesn't exist for God, then you figure he really wouldn't notice it. Not that I believe in such things, just throwing it out there.

If 'if's' and 'buts' were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas.

There is no evidence to support the idea that a complex being created humanity in its existing form a few thousand years ago, none.

Your God hypothesis holds exactly as much water as Allah, Zeus, Thor, and tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of other ancient and extinct god hypothesis. Why should you lend more credibility to the Christian God?


Do you accept the theory of evolution? Do you believe in God?

 

[Carthoris]

This tells me you do not understand the basic steps of the scientific method. If this were the way science worked, we would have never traveled to the moon, put satellites in space, cured disease, lengthened life expectancy, ect. Are you saying that science simply guessed right in these areas?

I understand the scientific method. I see studies every day that can be nothing but purposeful skewing of information to come up with the researches opinion that he had beforehand. This might not be what the scientific method is supposed to be, but it is the de facto scientific method for many.

My statement tells you that I have skepticism that the scientific method is being used at all except as a shield to cover lies in many cases, not that I don't understand it.

Many scientific breakthroughs are accidents as much as they are science. A theory is a guess, an educated one based on findings. This doesn't mean the findings are correct or the guess is correct. You only had to look at the room of people when we finally got to the moon. They weren't sure it would work, they guessed it would work. There might of been a emp force field around the moon for all the difference we knew. Until a theory is proven, it is still a guess.

A theory can run the gamut from having been thoroughly disproved to being thoroughly verified. A theory never graduates to a fact, which is why we do not call it "The fact of gravity". The best theories will have considerable explanatory power, considerable empirical evidence, and considerable ability to make correct predictions. Evolution easily meets those criteria.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Theory: The water in res is likely between 5 and 7 ph.
Fact: I tested the water in the res with different testers and it tested 5.9.
The theory became a fact once it was proven with no way to doubt it.
.


Facts are proven, theories are not. Theories become facts. We theorized we could make it to the moon and we did so. It became a fact and is no longer a theory since it was proven. We theorize how we can take a man to mars, it is still a theory since we haven't proven we can do it.

I never said Evolution wasn't true, I said it was a theory and not a fact because it wasn't proven to be true. I personally believe evolution is true. It is still a theory though because we can't prove it.

AGW does not fall into the same category as evolution because it isn't verifiable. All we have is charts that are usually skewed to show what the person wanted to find and not a substantial sample of earths historic temperatures and co2 levels. We had ice ages when the co2 levels were much higher than now, so the correlation between co2 and temperature doesn't exist as has been stated.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

I guess I should've stated,"the way most people present evolution as the infallible truth,is a lie."I don't get what they don't get if evolution theory evolved, then it's not fact.It's a best guess.I'm not saying it's not a good guess,just not truth.

 

[Carthoris]

It's an updated theory. There is nothing wrong with adjusting a theory based on new information. In fact, that is the appropriate thing to do. Would you feel better if they labeled it "Evolution Theory v1.9" or something? Can you name one theory which did not need adjustment before it was accepted?

That isn't what I was saying and you know it. I was saying that a theory that is proven to be wrong in whole or part is incorrect and has to be scrapped and started over. The theory of evolution doesn't state what causes evolution. Darwin's theory was natural selection, not evolution as that was not his theory. If you changed a base tenant of the theory it is no longer the same theory, it becomes something else. It is like cooking.

I am making spaghetti, but I am not using noodles, but potatoes. Instead of using tomato sauce I am going to make a paprika sauce, and instead of Italian sausage I am going to use chunks of beef.

It is no longer spaghetti since I completely changed everything, and calling it that is disingenuous. I have made Hungarian goulash instead.

If I just change the pasta to potatoes and leave the sausage and tomato sauce it still isn't spaghetti. It might be related, but it is a new dish, and calling it spaghetti is disingenuous.

If I another ingredient to spaghetti but leave it unchanged otherwise, it is still spaghetti.

I am not a evolution expert, but the basics of it are pretty simple to understand, and I agree evolution was, is, and will happen.

 

[Heisenberg]

I understand the scientific method. I see studies every day that can be nothing but purposeful skewing of information to come up with the researches opinion that he had beforehand. This might not be what the scientific method is supposed to be, but it is the de facto scientific method for many.

My statement tells you that I have skepticism that the scientific method is being used at all except as a shield to cover lies in many cases, not that I don't understand it.

Many scientific breakthroughs are accidents as much as they are science. A theory is a guess, an educated one based on findings. This doesn't mean the findings are correct or the guess is correct. You only had to look at the room of people when we finally got to the moon. They weren't sure it would work, they guessed it would work. There might of been a emp force field around the moon for all the difference we knew. Until a theory is proven, it is still a guess.



Theory: The water in res is likely between 5 and 7 ph.
Fact: I tested the water in the res with different testers and it tested 5.9.
The theory became a fact once it was proven with no way to doubt it.
.


Facts are proven, theories are not. Theories become facts. We theorized we could make it to the moon and we did so. It became a fact and is no longer a theory since it was proven. We theorize how we can take a man to mars, it is still a theory since we haven't proven we can do it.

I never said Evolution wasn't true, I said it was a theory and not a fact because it wasn't proven to be true. I personally believe evolution is true. It is still a theory though because we can't prove it.

AGW does not fall into the same category as evolution because it isn't verifiable. All we have is charts that are usually skewed to show what the person wanted to find and not a substantial sample of earths historic temperatures and co2 levels. We had ice ages when the co2 levels were much higher than now, so the correlation between co2 and temperature doesn't exist as has been stated.

Your characterization of theory disagrees with the entire scientific community, which works from hypothesis to theory, and agrees with the more colloquial yet incorrect understanding of the word.

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.

So a hypothesis can not become a theory until it gains some support through evidence. It must withstand attempts to falsify it, which is something science never stops trying to do. Evolution theory will never be a fact, just a sound theory.

You can not expect to argue precise terms in a scientific context and not use the scientific definition of those terms.

 

[cannabineer]

I understand the scientific method. I see studies every day that can be nothing but purposeful skewing of information to come up with the researches opinion that he had beforehand. This might not be what the scientific method is supposed to be, but it is the de facto scientific method for many.

My statement tells you that I have skepticism that the scientific method is being used at all except as a shield to cover lies in many cases, not that I don't understand it.

Many scientific breakthroughs are accidents as much as they are science. A theory is a guess, an educated one based on findings. This doesn't mean the findings are correct or the guess is correct. You only had to look at the room of people when we finally got to the moon. They weren't sure it would work, they guessed it would work. There might of been a emp force field around the moon for all the difference we knew. Until a theory is proven, it is still a guess.



Theory: The water in res is likely between 5 and 7 ph.
Fact: I tested the water in the res with different testers and it tested 5.9.
The theory became a fact once it was proven with no way to doubt it.
.


Facts are proven, theories are not. Theories become facts. We theorized we could make it to the moon and we did so. It became a fact and is no longer a theory since it was proven. We theorize how we can take a man to mars, it is still a theory since we haven't proven we can do it.

I never said Evolution wasn't true, I said it was a theory and not a fact because it wasn't proven to be true. I personally believe evolution is true. It is still a theory though because we can't prove it.

AGW does not fall into the same category as evolution because it isn't verifiable. All we have is charts that are usually skewed to show what the person wanted to find and not a substantial sample of earths historic temperatures and co2 levels. We had ice ages when the co2 levels were much higher than now, so the correlation between co2 and temperature doesn't exist as has been stated.

In the bolded, the correct first word would have been "hypothesis". I'm not trying to bug you, but imo the distinction is important. Hypothesis is the guess. Theory is the established fact or correlation. cn

 

[Carthoris]

The Constitution says nothing about the internet, piracy, copyrights, and a whole host of other things that hadn't been imagined when it was written, yet the Supreme Court has plenty of rulings regarding such things, so what exactly are you talking about?

You could not be any more wrong about that. First, you are not understanding what the constitution is. It states a list of things that the federal government is in control of and gives all others that are unstated to the states and the People. This means the constitution encompasses everything that can possibly exist. We might fight over who the constitution gives power over certain things to, but it does in fact give power over them to someone.

Second, the SCOTUS can rule whatever it wants, it doesn't make it legal or constitutional and later courts strike down the rulings of previous courts.

The Supreme Court will never define a fetus as a person because that categorization is incorrect according to millions of medical professionals. People have tried and they never win.

You never know what will happen. Once medical technology makes it so a person can be born the moment they are conceived and still survive then it will be entirely possibly they will rule unborn children. It has already begun. Never heard of "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act" have you? It isn't hard to see that the next step now that you can be charged with murder if you kill an unborn baby is to declare that if that law is constitutional then the unborn must be considered people before you can murder them.

Wrong. Theories that are backed up by facts can be altered given new information, this is in fact exactly how science works. It's a constant process. It takes quite a bit for an accepted theory in science to be completely thrown out, I can't even think of one off the top of my head that has been in nearly 400 years, and it's usually because of simple ignorance, not some groundbreaking discovery that completely changes the way we think.

"God" is not a theory, it's a belief, a belief accepted by the majority of it's believers that it's believed based on faith, not fact. Faith, by it's very definition, is factless.

Once a theory is proven false, it is done away with. If you have to remove a part of a theory to replace it because it has been disproved then the theory is a new one, not the same one. If 'natural selection' was disproved then the entirety of Darwin's theory would be disproved. However, The theory of evolution itself which predates Darwin would not be. There is a reason that it is called "Darwin's theory of evolution". The reason is that it is different than other theories of evolution.

Darwin's theory of evolution which in my opinion tends to dispute gods hand based on natural selection has to be taken on faith since we have no proof of how it started, it is no different than the Creationist evolution where evolution is accepted but the result of Gods will.

Religion and Science have a lot in common, sadly.

If 'if's' and 'buts' were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas.

There is no evidence to support the idea that a complex being created humanity in its existing form a few thousand years ago, none.

Your God hypothesis holds exactly as much water as Allah, Zeus, Thor, and tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of other ancient and extinct god hypothesis. Why should you lend more credibility to the Christian God?


Do you accept the theory of evolution? Do you believe in God?

I accept the theory of evolution. I have never stated otherwise. I have died before and seen the other side(or my brain shutting down, your call.) and I know what waits for me on the other side. It isn't the Christian fairy tale. My point isn't belief or non belief, I am pointing out that evolution is not a fact, it is just a theory. It could be wrong. God and Evolution could exist together in harmony. I never even began to state that God created the world or man a few thousand years ago and I am not Christian.

You are creating a straw man to beat up on. I never said I was Christian, I have repeatedly said I believe in evolution in the last 3 pages.

 

[Carthoris]

Your characterization of theory disagrees with the entire scientific community, which works from hypothesis to theory, and agrees with the more colloquial yet incorrect understanding of the word.



So a hypothesis can not become a theory until it gains some support through evidence. It must withstand attempts to falsify it, which is something science never stops trying to do. Evolution theory will never be a fact, just a sound theory.

You can not expect to argue precise terms in a scientific context and not use the scientific definition of those terms.

I have never seen evolution or AGW referred to as 'The hypothesis of'. Evolution is not a proven fact and neither is AGW. Scientists shouldn't use words in the incorrect way and then expect me to not use them the same way.