• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientific American - 2019 - what to expect...

marke said:
But my reading comprehension is good, right? Did the article say scientists have proved all life descended from a common ancestor? Of course not.
Click to expand...

Proof is the thing you’re focused on here.

I can’t prove a lot of things that I know are true.
 
Quaestio said:
It's not surprising that he rejects biology and evolution. Rejecting the existence of the earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect appears to be a zealous religious belief as well. I wonder if he also believes the age of the earth is only thousands of years instead of ~4.54 ± 0.05 billion years. Probably uses Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham's absurd tactic of asking "Were you there?"
Click to expand...

The age of Earth is unknown. As far as Ken's question, it applies to each of the religions I have mentioned.

Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. There is no way to determine of the event actually took place. Ken's, "Were you there?" question is applicable not only to the Theory of the Big Bang, the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Abiogenesis, but also to the Theory of Creation (unfortunate for Ken!).
 
Threegoofs said:
Proof is the thing you’re focused on here.

I can’t prove a lot of things that I know are true.
Click to expand...

So you are going by an argument of faith. That's fine, but remember that it IS an argument of faith.
 
Into the Night said:
The age of Earth is unknown. As far as Ken's question, it applies to each of the religions I have mentioned.

Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. There is no way to determine of the event actually took place. Ken's, "Were you there?" question is applicable not only to the Theory of the Big Bang, the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Abiogenesis, but also to the Theory of Creation (unfortunate for Ken!).
Click to expand...

Yes, we already knew you don't have a clue about science, no need to remind us yet again.
 
Into the Night said:
Inversion fallacy. Evasion. Answer his question put to you.
Click to expand...

Once again, there is no such thing as an "Inversion" fallacy, you made it up. And you're projecting yet again.
 
Threegoofs said:
Proof is the thing you’re focused on here.

I can’t prove a lot of things that I know are true.
Click to expand...

There you have it. What need is there for scientific verification if you already know something is true whether scientists can prove it or not?
 
LowDown said:
They should change the name of that magazine to "Scientismic American".*
Click to expand...

Wow!

being a person of reason and one with respect of science I find posts like this startling.
 
noonereal said:
Wow!

being a person of reason and one with respect of science I find posts like this startling.
Click to expand...

Scientific American dishonored itself long ago.

From Michael Crichton's CalTech Michelin Lecture, 2003:

". . . Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was “rife with careless mistakes.” It was a poor display, featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocaust denier. The issue was captioned: “Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist.” Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?
When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn’t enough, he put the critics’ essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.
Further attacks since, have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That’s why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That’s why the facts don’t matter. That’s why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He’s a heretic.
Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I’d see the Scientific American in the role of Mother Church. . . . "
 
Jack Hays said:
Scientific American
Click to expand...

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.
 
noonereal said:
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.
Click to expand...

I did not support or vote for Trump and I don't support him now.
I have read Scientific American regularly.
Your unfounded assumptions and presumptions will be your undoing.
 
Threegoofs said:
Scientific verification rarely consists of ‘proof’
Click to expand...

Good point. In this latest issue we are talking about scientific theories which have a lot of speculation, assumption and biased interpretations in the foundational supporting 'evidence'.
 
Jack Hays said:
Scientific American dishonored itself long ago.

From Michael Crichton's CalTech Michelin Lecture, 2003:

". . . Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was “rife with careless mistakes.” It was a poor display, featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocaust denier. The issue was captioned: “Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist.” Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?
When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn’t enough, he put the critics’ essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.
Further attacks since, have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That’s why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That’s why the facts don’t matter. That’s why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He’s a heretic.
Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I’d see the Scientific American in the role of Mother Church. . . . "
Click to expand...

I still subscribe to Scientific American, but they are biased related to AGW, and seem to have at least one catastrophic article per issue.
This month was the cover Headline "Antarctica Collapse? Meet the Glacier that might sink the worlds coastal cities"
 
longview said:
I still subscribe to Scientific American, but they are biased related to AGW, and seem to have at least one catastrophic article per issue.
This month was the cover Headline "Antarctica Collapse? Meet the Glacier that might sink the worlds coastal cities"
Click to expand...

Because that’s science.

You apparently don’t understand that AGW is real and will lead to adverse consequences.

That’s why we call you a denier.
 
Threegoofs said:
Because that’s science.

You apparently don’t understand that AGW is real and will lead to adverse consequences.

That’s why we call you a denier.
Click to expand...
Did you read the SA article about the possibility of the Glacier in Antarctica collapsing?
I did, and it is full of "IF's" and speculation.
 
longview said:
Did you read the SA article about the possibility of the Glacier in Antarctica collapsing?
I did, and it is full of "IF's" and speculation.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Threegoofs said:
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.
Click to expand...
Science is about what we can measure, not what we speculate "might" happen, if many different variable might occur.
 
Threegoofs said:
Scientific verification rarely consists of ‘proof’
Click to expand...

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.
 
noonereal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Science isn't a magazine, dude. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom