If you're not a scientist (Page 4): Yes, like in global warming. Over 90% of scientists believe global warming is real. Most of the deniers are subsidized by companies like the oil...

pegw

bylm1-Bernie wrote:

What happens when scientists disagree with other scientists? Do we see who has the most scientists on their side?

Yes, like in global warming. Over 90% of scientists believe global warming is real. Most of the deniers are subsidized by companies like the oil industry.

Bruce123

The one that says you cannot question science.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Bruce123 wrote:

The one that says you cannot question science.

I remembe Fauci claiming he as "science".
What a highly paid stooge!

pegw

Blade_Runner wrote:

Water (H20) is the only element in the universe that expands when it cools and contracts when heated.
Scientists cannot explain that.

Scientists don't know why ice is slick, why people yawn, or why a bicycle remains upright when ridden.

Lots of things science has yet to explain, or even discover.

They do know why ice is slick. When putting pressure on ice, you melt a tiny bit of it. This slick of water on top of ice makes it slippery. I wouldn't bet on sciencetists don't know about the other two.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

pegw wrote:

They do know why ice is slick. When putting pressure on ice, you melt a tiny bit of it. This slick of water on top of ice makes it slippery. I wouldn't bet on sciencetists don't know about the other two.

Some things science cannot explain:

1. Logical and mathematical truths (which are presupposed by science)

2. Metaphysical truths (like the past was not created 5 minutes ago with an appearance of age)

3. Ethical truths

4. Aesthetic truths

5. Science itself (since science is based on assumptions that can’t be proven)

6. the existence of the universe (why is there universe at all?)

7. the beginning of the universe (assuming it had one)

8. the existence of scientific laws

So far these are things that science cannot explain in principle. Here are a couple more that science cannot explain at present and arguably are such that science is unlikely to ever provide more than a partial explanation:

9. the existence of conscious minds

10. the fine-tuning of the physical constants

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

PeterS wrote:

My, my, a lot a disagreement about science coming from our most conservative block. Why is it I'm not at all surprised that that is so?

To what sort of thinking do we attribute the notion that conservatives are anti-science, reject science, or otherwise have no use for science?

If you're looking for a basic education in how scientists work,
how scientific theories are formulated and how the laws of science are applied,
the methods for research, the framing of hypotheses,
the mistakes, the trials and errors, the failures and successes,
the challenges and disagreements,
and much more,
I suggest reading The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes.
This sweeping account begins in the 19th century, with the discovery of nuclear fission, and continues to World War Two and the Americans’ race to beat Hitler’s Nazis. That competition launched the Manhattan Project and the nearly overnight construction of a vast military-industrial complex that culminated in the fateful dropping of the first bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Reading like a character-driven suspense novel, the book introduces the players in this saga of physics, politics, and human psychology—from FDR and Einstein to the visionary scientists who pioneered quantum theory and the application of thermonuclear fission, including Planck, Szilard, Bohr, Oppenheimer, Fermi, Teller, Meitner, von Neumann, and Lawrence.

From nuclear power’s earliest foreshadowing in the work of H.G. Wells to the bright glare of Trinity at Alamogordo and the arms race of the Cold War, this dread invention forever changed the course of human history, and The Making of The Atomic Bomb provides a panoramic backdrop for that story.

Richard Rhodes’s ability to craft compelling biographical portraits is matched only by his rigorous scholarship. Told in rich human, political, and scientific detail that any reader can follow, The Making of the Atomic Bomb is a thought-provoking and masterful work.

I have read this book 3 times and plan to again. It is a challenge even for someone with a background in science, especially so when Rhodes gets into the science itself. His rendering of the processes in a nuclear detonation, picosecond by picosecond, is both fascinating and terrifying.

FYI: Political science does not govern the universe, nor does it define life and explain its existence.

American Vet

pegw wrote:

Yes, like in global warming. Over 90% of scientists believe global warming is real. Most of the deniers are subsidized by companies like the oil industry.

Hardly news. Global warming (or cooling - all fall under the moniker of 'climate change') is real. It has been occurring since the world began.

And?

bylm1-Bernie

pegw wrote:

Yes, like in global warming. Over 90% of scientists believe global warming is real. Most of the deniers are subsidized by companies like the oil industry.

Peg, I have to tell you that 90% they've been throwing around for a long time is not accurate. Beside, the deniers are not the ones subsidized. It's those who are trying to push global warming.

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

American Vet wrote:

Hardly news. Global warming (or cooling - all fall under the moniker of 'climate change') is real. It has been occurring since the world began.

And?

And there has always been a cause. Now we are the cause.

American Vet

RascalRiley wrote:

And there has always been a cause. Now we are the cause.

Who is "we"?

What do you think should be done about it?

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

American Vet wrote:

Who is "we"?

What do you think should be done about it?

Slow the inevitable if you care about your grandchild’s future.

Otherwise, carry on polluting. Your grandchildren’s grandchildren are screwed no matter what can be accomplished politically today. Greed will win.

Army

keepuphope wrote:

If your talking to Archie that is exacally what you people who say a man can menestrate sound like. It makes exacally as much sense and truth as what you woke morons are saying. Your delusional. A male can't have babies or a period. You can choose to look and act like a woman but will never ever be a woman. If you change the outside your still male by your DNA.

Right woman still has 2 X chromosomes. X & Y make a man can't change that. The reason they don't want the Man & Woman sex because want to destroy in the image created in Gods image. Because they want transhumanism & Al a Zombie creation through DNA biology just as did through sex as the Giants Nephilim I n the Bible . It's not science fiction anymore . This is a Battle from Hell we are in .

https://rumble.com/vjw3m6-dr.-richard-fleming.html

SilentGeneration Loc: Michigan

manning5 wrote:

Where do these memes come from? Are they trying to... (show quote)

From another old codger, I remember learning that science moves forward by developing new theories and then testing those theories to see if they hold up. Scientists are not gods and theories need to be tested to see if they work. This is scientific progress.

straightUp Loc: California

WEBCO wrote:

Except when science is "political science"

Like with covid and climate change. In those cases scientists lie because if they don't they won't get anymore funding.

Eh... political science is more like CRT... COVID-19 is straight up biology and climate change, aside from being climate science, is just frickin' obvious.

straightUp Loc: California

SilentGeneration wrote:

From another old codger, I remember learning that science moves forward by developing new theories and then testing those theories to see if they hold up. Scientists are not gods and theories need to be tested to see if they work. This is scientific progress.

Exactly!