Theories, Facts, and 'Denialism'

American Thinker ^ | March 06, 2010 | Daniel H. Fernald

[valkyry1]

This is one thing that was always lost on the FR-evolutionists.

[CondoleezzaProtege]

Just wanted to say, “American Thinker” is one of the best publications out there.

[valkyry1]

ping

[valkyry1]

A world-class scientist on the listserv claimed in the course of an unrelated debate that gravity was a fact, not a theory. This struck me as fundamentally wrongheaded, and it still does. It is, of course, a “fact” that unsupported objects fall. What explains this observable fact is the theory of gravity. Gravity is the theory; the falling object is the fact. The theory explains the fact, but the theory never becomes a fact.

This scientist was quite adamant on the point, going so far as to assert that we inquisitive laymen on this listserv should just take his word for it, since he is an expert and we aren't.

I wondered at the time how such a universally acclaimed scholar in the sciences could make an error so elementary that even my freshmen logic students could see it, while also so blithely refusing to engage in constructive discussion.

One sees the same lack of openness and intellectual rigor in the arrogance, stonewalling, name-calling, and apparently deliberate obfuscation that have characterized the response of some global warming/climate change supporters to the legitimate questions that have been raised by scientists and laymen alike.

Or maybe the point was not lost on the FR-evolutionist’s, the article sounds a lot like them. I think we can the the FR-evolutionist’s Denialists in the religion of Denialism.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[blu]

For anyone who is interested in how the scientific community REALLY works, and REALLY shuts down its members who don’t agree with them, I highly recommend Ben Stein’s “Expelled!”

It’s a movie about how the scientific community deals with those among them who even mention “Intelligent Design”. (hint: picture those three monkeys seeing nothing, hearing nothing, and saying nothing)

[J Aguilar]

Good post. An object falling is a fact, Newton's gravity is a theory, well surpassed by Einstein's relativity theory.

Scientifics are human beings, and as human beings they are motivated in an ordered way. According to the Maslow's hierarchy of needs they would always put their stomach before their brains.

[Mojave]

Do gravitons exist? What is the speed of gravity?

[Right Wing Assault]

Most people think “theory” is equivalent to “hypothesis.” They say things such as, “Oh, that’s just a theory.” No, theory is a strong word in science.

[count-your-change]

The two, belief in biological evolution and belief in human caused climate change, are promoted in much the same way but for slightly different purposes.

One can intellectually accept evolution as fact while sitting comfortably all day on the sofa but for any concept to make the grade as Al Gore's “central organizing principle” the heart as well as the head must be involved and that demands action, positive demonstrative acts in one’s life. That means getting up and doing “green”.

It's not enough for the carbon consumer to say he believes in the Green Goddess Gaia, he must do something, give that pinch of incense on the altar however insincere the act is, so to speak.

The two notions, climate change (aka, “global warming”) whether attributed to humans or not, and evolution are wedded together. Climate change brought about and spurred evolution, sort of made us what we are today says the true believer scientists, but, being without purpose and direction, ran amok and humans proved a tad too successful.

Now humans can get organized under a low carbon banner and make amends for over reproduction and with the help of experts, scholars, scientists, etc. mitigate our progress.

And why not, after all they speak hard facts while everyone blathers opinion, they deal with evidence while the rest of us commerce in emotion, reality versus faith and so forth.

All we have to do is toss a pinch of incense on the consensus altar and shut up lest we discourage others from saving the planet, thank you.

As for the “ lack of openness and intellectual rigor in the arrogance, stonewalling, name-calling, and apparently deliberate obfuscation...”? When the planet is being saved one has to be tolerant of such things, I suppose.

[RipSawyer]

“I think we can the the”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Is that anything like “The Can Can”?

[RipSawyer]

I probably thought the same until I entered the US Navy class “A” electronics school where I studied the “theory” of electronics. It was then that I realized that a theory is an explanation of observed facts and when the theory becomes insufficient to explain the newly observed facts the theory must be revised.

The statement that “that is only a theory” is a reliable indicator of ignorance.

[neverdem]

Scandal special! Special thanks to Delacon & Ernest at the Beach for the CONSENSUS EXPOSED threads.

Walter Russell Mead: Treason Is A Matter Of Dates (Rips NY Times ignoring climategate)

CONSENSUS EXPOSED, PART 1

EPW POLICY BEAT: CONSENSUS EXPOSED, PART 2 ( Global Warming Consensus that is )

CONSENSUS EXPOSED, PART 3: 'HIDE THE DECLINE'

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore ! _

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Cicero]

As for false experts, has anyone heard of a fellow named "Al Gore"? The former U.S. vice president and divinity school flunk-out has no scientific background, yet this eco-guru has earned a Nobel Prize for his error-riddled slide show, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in climate-related business ventures.

One more nugget: Al Gore managed to get a D at Harvard in Nat Sci. That was an obligatory core course for all undergraduates, which most students at the time considered to be a "gut course."

[neverdem]

D? LOL!

[metmom]

A world-class scientist on the listserv claimed in the course of an unrelated debate that gravity was a fact, not a theory. This struck me as fundamentally wrongheaded, and it still does. It is, of course, a "fact" that unsupported objects fall. What explains this observable fact is the theory of gravity. Gravity is the theory; the falling object is the fact. The theory explains the fact, but the theory never becomes a fact.

So much for the FRevos self-proclaimed mastery of science.

For all their contentions what creationists *just don't get it* and need *to go back to college and learn what science is really all about*, they have ended up with egg on their faces.

[Right Wing Assault]

I think most people think the same thing. It shows the lack of good science teaching to the general public. Most people don’t learn what ‘theory’ means until they get into a good high school science course or a good college course. “Good” is an important detail.

But still, we move along.