|
Posted on 03/05/2010 5:46:05 AM PST by jilliane
A giant asteroid smashing into Earth is the only plausible explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs, a global scientific team said on Thursday, hoping to settle a row that has divided experts for decades.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Actually, it is science. What it isn't is the metaphysically certain truth. Science doesn't give you the truth, it gives you the best answer with the evidence at hand. People often forget that.
Science is extremely limited and most scientific discoveries are very incremental. That's what makes climate science so absurd.
Nothing. The real question is what the losing side loses, which is research grants to pursue alternative extinction theories down dark rat holes at public expense.
Is this a pet project of yours or are you just normally this testy?,
My pet project, right now, is a personal war on the anti-science bigots who call themselves conservatives. A stunning fraction of scientists refuse to support anything remotely approaching conservatism because of the anti-science bigotry they perceive among its chief exponents.
This cauterwailing about a pronouncement of a sceintific body is the sort of thing that drives the nail in that cofin.
And yes I am that testy over the collective ignorance that conservatives are capable of demonstrating when they chalk their soles for the task.
Otherwise, not my field and not my topic, so other than knowing that some of these guys are really smart guys doing really good work, I have no dog in the fight.
I have no idea WTF you think you are bloviating about.
This is simply wrong. Most issues are closed sooner or later. That does not mean it cannot be revisited. For instnace the constancy of the speed of light or the lack of superluminescent particles is "closed." No one seriously disbelieves it. Very very good physicists will ocasionally trot out a new experiment on a new accelerator to test it. That is fine. New evidence could emerge. No one oposes a few folks spending resources looking. But still, for all intents and purposes, the issue is closed and we move on assuming that the Lorentz Group is a symmetry of elementary fields.
I can measure the alcohol content of your sorry butt post mortem and calculate the trajectory off of the machanical bull that tossed you and I can come up with a pretty convincing theory about how you met your demise without recreating the event, getting you liquored up and finding someone to hold your beer.
Settled science?
Is it true what OldProfessor states, that, "we see the bar lowered to 41 [scientists]," as the consensus in this article?
.
Caterwauling is not a modern discovery nor are you the first person to tire of ‘fools,’ but still discourse is the stuff of reasonable fellows, not the contrariness of harridans and hooligans of speech, don’t you think?
If those 41 were the only ones, you might have a point.
The Bible doesn’t even mention dinosaurs. Any theories why?
And if they aren’t mentioned in the Bible, maybe the whole thing is a hoax?
Maybe because dinosaurs weren’t germaine to the content of the bible?
They don't mention species either, do you think the Bible might have labeled the dinosaurs differently? The Bible does mention "with their kind," maybe they called dinosaurs "leviathans?"
.
If folks approached this in the spirit of open discourse to discover a truth I would have no problem. But, folks confuse serious science on an issue that has been long settled and not just by a committee of 41, with junk science.
Everyone who protests that global warming is junk science is reliant upon information and data collected by satellites and recording stations built by scientists, all interpreted by scientists who are among the harshest critics of those behind the global warming conspiracy.
There are good scientists and there are frauds. Good scientists should not suffer because frauds rush in.
As well as if they were frauds posturing as good scientists and opposing well-founded conclusions of the best scientists going.
If we could just reach some sort of agreement that the Federal Reserve's reckless monetary policies over the past decades are a source of our present ruin we might actually be able to bury the hatchet as I don't think we disagree on other matters.
|
I question your official definition of anti-science.
Note: this topic is from 03/05/2010. Adding to the list, not pinging.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
