Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bad science?
ramoss
Member (Idle past 642 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 4 of 148 (310248)
05-08-2006 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by riVeRraT
05-08-2006 8:35 AM


Well, you are right. Not all science is good science. There is a lot of 'junk science' out there. It is also known as 'psuedo-science'.
There are certain criteria that makes good science.
When it comes to climate change, there is no question that the earth is warming up. There is no question that green house gas emissions. The question is how much of the climate change is due to natural cycles, and how much of it is due to human activity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by riVeRraT, posted 05-08-2006 8:35 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by riVeRraT, posted 05-09-2006 10:52 PM ramoss has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 642 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 8 of 148 (310685)
05-10-2006 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by riVeRraT
05-09-2006 10:52 PM


Nonsense. You are building up a strawman. There are specific requirements to make what is science, and what isn't science.
In 2002, Dr. Park was asked by a panel of Federal Judges for advice on how to reconise questionable scientific claims. (Dr Robert Park was a professor of physics at the university of Maryland). This is the list he came up with.
The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
There might be disagreement about climate change, but it IS based on empirical data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by riVeRraT, posted 05-09-2006 10:52 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2006 5:31 PM ramoss has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 642 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 51 of 148 (312432)
05-16-2006 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by riVeRraT
05-16-2006 11:01 AM


It is far easier for the person who is getting money from the faithful than it is for the scientiest.
The scientist has to worry about peer review and reproducable results. While that might delay things, the pigeons will come home to roost sooner or later.
It is also not as financially lucrative as the religion game.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by riVeRraT, posted 05-16-2006 11:01 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by riVeRraT, posted 05-16-2006 5:12 PM ramoss has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 642 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 74 of 148 (339826)
08-13-2006 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Armbar
06-18-2006 3:15 AM


re: what makes a scientist?
The conditions that would allow the fossils to from happened quickly. The volcanic eruption covered the bodies of many animals and plants. However, the process where the soft tissue and calcium of the bones are replaced by stone have not yet occured. It is that process that will take many many years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Armbar, posted 06-18-2006 3:15 AM Armbar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024