Page 28 of 30 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 293

Thread: Scientific American - 2019 - what to expect...

  1. #271
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    19,078

    Re: Scientific American - 2019 - what to expect...

    Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
    And? Lots of articles are about ‘ifs’ and speculation.

    But when you deny the stuff that isn’t ‘ifs’ or speculation, and whine about the stuff that is, you earn the monicker of ‘denier’.

    This isn’t that hard.
    Science is about what we can measure, not what we speculate "might" happen, if many different variable might occur.

  2. #272
    Sage Into the Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,433

    Re: Scientific American - 2019 - what to expect...

    Quote Originally Posted by Quaestio View Post
    Once again, there is no such thing as an "Inversion" fallacy, you made it up. And you're projecting yet again.
    False authority fallacy. Inversion fallacy.

  3. #273
    Sage Into the Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,433

    Re: Scientific American - 2019 - what to expect...

    Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
    Scientific verification rarely consists of ‘proof’
    Not even rarely. There are no proofs in science. No amount of supporting evidence will prove, sanctify, bless, or otherwise make more legitimate any theory, scientific or otherwise. Science does not use supporting evidence.

    Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Literally mountains of supporting evidence mean NOTHING in the face of a single piece of conflicting evidence.

  4. #274
    Sage Into the Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,433

    Re: Scientific American - 2019 - what to expect...

    Quote Originally Posted by noonereal View Post
    and I KNOW you have NEVER read the publication. I doubt 99% of Trumpets have.

    As long as you read Trump's paper of record, the National Enquirer, evolving knowledge will elude you.
    Science isn't a magazine, dude. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

  5. #275
    Sage Into the Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,433

    Re: Scientific American - 2019 - what to expect...

    Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
    Because that’s science.
    No, it isn't. It's religion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
    You apparently don’t understand that AGW is real and will lead to adverse consequences.
    It is not real. It is a religion. See the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
    Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
    That’s why we call you a denier.
    Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is denying science.

    So does Scientific American magazine.

  6. #276
    Sage Into the Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,433

    Re: Scientific American - 2019 - what to expect...

    Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
    And? Lots of articles are about ‘ifs’ and speculation.

    But when you deny the stuff that isn’t ‘ifs’ or speculation, and whine about the stuff that is, you earn the monicker of ‘denier’.

    This isn’t that hard.
    Science isn't a casino. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

  7. #277
    Sage Into the Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,433

    Re: Scientific American - 2019 - what to expect...

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    Science is about what we can measure, not what we speculate "might" happen, if many different variable might occur.
    Not quite. Science isn't data. It isn't observations at all. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

    Observations are evidence only. They are part of no theory.

    That said, those theories are about quantifiable things, since to be falsifiable, they must be testable by defined tests, that are specific, and produce specific results. That's where the quantification comes in.

  8. #278
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    19,078

    Re: Scientific American - 2019 - what to expect...

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Not quite. Science isn't data. It isn't observations at all. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

    Observations are evidence only. They are part of no theory.

    That said, those theories are about quantifiable things, since to be falsifiable, they must be testable by defined tests, that are specific, and produce specific results. That's where the quantification comes in.
    The semantics are fine, but I have been doing R&D for a long time, and will stick to that which I can measure.
    Quantifying is something is falsifiable, comes down to measurements or detection.

  9. #279
    Sage Into the Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,433

    Re: Scientific American - 2019 - what to expect...

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    The semantics are fine, but I have been doing R&D for a long time, and will stick to that which I can measure.
    R&D is not science either. It is part of the process of engineering, if anything. Science is not R&D. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    Quantifying is something is falsifiable, comes down to measurements or detection.
    Is this a typo? I can't make sense of this statement.

  10. #280
    Guru
    Quaestio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Oz
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,915

    Re: Scientific American - 2019 - what to expect...

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    False authority fallacy. Inversion fallacy.
    Once again, there is no such thing as an "Inversion" fallacy, you made it up. And you're projecting yet again.
    "The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong" -Richard Feynman
    “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.” Bertrand Russell

Page 28 of 30 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •