[Agamemnon]

Where is the logic in their argument?.... There is none. They apply a double standard to EVERYTHING and constantly hold others to standards that they don't apply to themselves.

And that is the reason I have said for years that evolutionists resemble the liberals that we as true conservatives despise, and it is just one of the evidences that evolutionists share little to nothing in common with what inspired the founders of our nation.

Double standards are for liberals. Judeo-Christian Conservative principles are the standards against which conservatives are willing to be measured because they are based in Truth.

As shown with the global warming frauds, evolutionary "peer-review" is merely "science" accomplished in pursuit of a politically motivated consensus. That is why they have often and openly declared on these threads that the study of science has nothing to do with "truth" and that science doesn't "prove" anything.

Is mathematics not the purest of sciences? Mathematics is chock full of formally termed and mathematically demonstrable "proofs." Statistical measures form confidence intervals of probabilities of certainties. The most precise stistically derived certainties are those which are obtained within the most narrowly defined intervals or "goal posts".

As with the general concept of truth, in math there are absolutes together with perfect concepts of right and wrong. Sure there's theoretical postulates one can make about theoretical subsets of applied mathematics in theoretical contexts. In these concepts, however, that which is bedrock mathematical truth is often "bent-to-fit" some theoretical concept. In that it resides outside the concept of mathematical truth, it remains merely theoretical. But math calculated correctly obtains only right answers and identifies quite plainly what are wrong answers.

When evolutionist "materialistas" say science can't prove anything, they have clearly divorced their study of science from mathematical certainties, because they want to shift the goal posts and measures on a whim to suit their self-important self-enlightenment, not to seek after nor to affirm what is true.

That way it's "science" because "peer-review" says it's science, not necessarily that the study of science was based in fact, or in anything more than than fraudulent contrivances and modeling techniques some fallible or even purposefully less-than truthful "scientist" imagined.

What's worse in the case of AGW is that it is now abundantly evident that they committed fraud for monetary gain, sacrificed what they knew to be true for monetray gain, and lied openly for monetary gain and "OBJECTIVE" PEER-REVIEW LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT... AND IT DID SO REPEATEDLY!!

By that measure they are left as dumbfounded as was Pilate as he stared at Truth incarnate and could only mutter, "What is Truth?"

"Peer review," became a conspiracy to obscure truth in AGW, even as it has been a conspiracy for many years to hide truth and ignore competing evidence against materialistic evolution.

My point is: Liberals do that. Not conservatives.

I counter what is a patently liberal manifestation of philosophy in science with the following maxim:

"The study of science absent the search for truth is no study of science at all."

FReegards!

[metmom]

What's worse in the case of AGW is that it is now abundantly evident that they committed fraud for monetary gain, sacrificed what they knew to be true for monetray gain, and lied openly for monetary gain and "OBJECTIVE" PEER-REVIEW LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT... AND IT DID SO REPEATEDLY!!

Near as I can figure, peer review isn't about determining the truth of the matter. It's just about determining whether the proper procedures were followed in doing the research. I don't think that there's much else they can actually, technically, objectively determine from reviewing a paper

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear Agamemnon!

One correction though: mathematics is not science.

Moreover, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences (Wigner) is to me like God's copyright notice on the cosmos.

Mathematics claims logical proofs. Science can make no such claim.

[Stultis]

I don't have a problem if you want to call mathematics a "science". That's just a matter of semantics. But the substance of your argument is fundamentally false.

You claim that, because mathematics can and does, in at least many of its results, achieve certain truth, we should expect the same of the natural sciences.

You don't use the term "natural" science, but this is precisely the problem. You ignore the critical distinction that mathematics, even if it is a science, is not a natural science.

We can achieve certainty in mathematics precisely because we know the "laws" that govern all possible operations of the relevant systems in advance. In the natural sciences we do not have this information in advance. IT is, rather, those laws what we are trying to discover by doing science. The whole process is almost exactly opposite. In mathematics we start with the rules, and investigate their consequences. In natural science we start with the consequences, and try to infer the rules that cause them.

To claim that we can achieve certainty in natural science the same way we can in mathematics, is to claim to know all the laws of nature, IOW to claim to have the knowledge of GOD.