What if science is wrong? (Saturbray)

www.braylog.com ^ | 1/23/16 | bray

[E. Pluribus Unum]

"Peer review" where only selected peers who agree are allowed to review is not peer review.

Michael Manns' now discredited "hockey stick" graph was peer-reviewed... by his buddies.

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick

[gusty]

I think you are creating a false conflict between God and Science. I personally reconcile the two by postulating that creation occurred at the beginning of time, and everything unleashed after that singular occurrence was science. Look at it that God created Science, evolution included. Science is all part of the plan. Our job has been to try to figure it all out, otherwise we would all still be living in mud houses herding our sheep.

[aquila48]

This idiocy is what gives fundamentalists a bad reputation... and rightly so.

[bray]

The atheist bullies are out in force. You must believe in our god science or else.

How is that Global Warming science working for the world?

[aquila48]

How is the computer you typed that on working?

Do you drive a car? Have you flown on a plane? Do you use electricity? Do you use a toilet? Do you have light bulbs in your house? A washing machine?....

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

Conclusions based on agendas are often wrong but conclusions based on science are not

As long as it's real science...There is plenty of phony science out there like global warming and evolutionary "science"....

[bray]

Apples and oranges argument. You are talking technology which has less junk science than biology and classic sciences. Nice try though.

Keep worshiping that Global Warming theology.

[Lazamataz]

So Global Warming is real?

Sure it is. So is Global Cooling.

You just threw out all science because some quacks are misusing it. You're a good guy but this article is wrongheaded.

[bray]

According to you. Maybe you are the one who is wrongheaded?

[Lazamataz]

According to you. Maybe you are the one who is wrongheaded?

Well, no. Not according to me. According to my computer, which functions based on scientific discoveries. According to my firearms, which function based on scientific discoveries. According to my cell phone, which functions based on scientific discoveries. According to my car, which functions based on scientific discoveries. According to the power grid, which functions based on scientific discoveries. According to my medicines, which function based on scientific discoveries. According to my television, which functions based on scientific discoveries. According to my refrigerator, which functions based on scientific discoveries. According to the internet, which functions based on scientific discoveries. According to my radio, which functions based on scientific discoveries. According to airplanes, which function based on scientific discoveries.

So who's wrongheaded here?

[JimRed]

What if we have driven ourselves into a dead end street and God actually is real?

Belief in God and in (proven) science are not mutually exclusive.

[aquila48]

Technology is applied science.

Your ridiculous diatribe is against ALL science.

It’s one thing to be rationally critical of any particular theory, it’s another thing to make a fool of yourself by denying or being blind to obvious reality like you did.

You may want to be a bit more self-critical before you embark on your next missive. Be your own devil’s advocate and not paint with such broad brushes.

[bray]

You are talking about technology which is apples and oranges. I gave you more examples of junk science that is a waste of time and energy.

What if all of your examples would be multiplied exponentially if we would focus on real science rather than corrupted agenda driven science? You are accepting this is all we can do while I am saying this is in spite of science.

Laz you are a great guy too, but what if you are wrong? What if we have been wrong for a long time?

[Secret Agent Man]

Yup.

And in adition to consensus, liberals also use intimidation.

[Right Wing Assault]

Modern science is also run by consensus....it’s called peer review.

Scientific consensus changes with new information.

Liberal consensus changes when they need it to back up their current agenda.

However, some 'scientists' try to change the consensus to support their political agenda, so the differences are decreasing.

[itsahoot]

Modern science is also run by consensus....it’s called peer review.

They all work for the same government grant money. Try getting any Government funded research job after noting on your application that Global Warming is a fraud.

[itsahoot]

Well, then just how is it (to mention only a more-recent example) that those scientists managed to manoever the space probe Dawn to within a few hundred km of Pluto last summer, take a slew of high-resolution images, and beam them 5 billion km back to Earth?

To be honest very little science was involved in that operation. Only Math and engineering, those are developed skills not new discoveries.

[itsahoot]

So I am getting some of the nastiest emails I have ever received on FR. Guess I am flying over the fort.

Crevo threads are the only thing capable of more vitriol that the current Trump/Cruz/Palin threads.

[itsahoot]

Laz you are a great guy too, but what if you are wrong? What if we have been wrong for a long time?

Rush posed that question some time back. What if everything you know is wrong?

There were no classified documents on Hillary's server, most of us will not believe that but what will future generations know about that from official recorded history? History also records scientific advances/discoveries some of them may even be recorded accurately, many won't be. I suppose most truth will eventually out, but not always. In reality Truth is always what we perceive it to be, new truths come about when new facts change our perception, that is the reality of perception.

Remember those evil Krauts and Nips that we had to change our perception of, in order to easily accept the massive killing that brought the war's end?

[bray]

Well said. The people who write the history use it to promote their agenda. Science and God could easily coexist if there was not an agenda behind it.