Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 10/05/2011 5:10:06 AM PDT by SJackson
Global-cooling-global-warming-climate-change conclusions all require the same solution. They don't know which problem it is, but each of them can be totally avoided by requiring less individual freedom and more income redistribution.
The real anti-science people are those who misuse their scientific credentials to force a political result.
Anyone who talks about “believing in Science” obviously has no idea what genuine science is. What they really mean is, “Believe in the religion that gives me the power of life and death over others.” If they were honest or informed, they’d simply called it Satanism.
I thought they should make an analogy: Do you believe in Newton's Laws of motion? Now every physics student will spend at least a year studying classical mechanics. It is a very useful theory. However, Heisenberg essentially proved that it is false in the 1930's.
The Marquis Laplace made the following comment (and he knew classical mechanics as well as anyone).
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
He was incorrect.
One should be very, very careful about making sweeping conclusions even based on theories that have great validity.
They should ask the Democraps that since they don’t believe in Creationism, why do they believe in Creationism by the state in controlling people’s lives by using the mighty hand of government as a substitute for the hand of God in telling people what to do.
As a scientist (physical chemist) , I'd say you are definitely homing in on the target with that statement!
Dead link; Try this;
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/10/04/who-really-is-“anti-science”/
Ping to an article that has promise of developing into a rational discussion of subjects that are of interest to us...
Democrats truly are the anti-science party, in that they ignore any advances in scientific metaphysics beyond the mechanistic rationalism of the late 19th century...
HERE:
The Creature From the Barack Lagoon & the Tyranny of the Disordered
The problem is mostly in definitions. While man-made CO2 is a fact of life, the warming it produces is slight, called anthropogenic global warming. What is often conflated with AGW is catastrophic AGW which is not a fact, but projection by some poor resolution models that can't properly model weather. It is likely that AGW will lead to more intense rainfall in some cases (simply due to more evaporation), but that speedup of the water cycle is a negative feedback. It is not likely that Greenland will melt in the next few centuries (substantially) or Antarctica (at all). Sea level rise is one inch per decade and not accelerating. Other things blamed on AGW like the strong tornadoes last spring have no relationship to AGW measured or modeled. Properly defining AGW as science, imperfect as it may be, is the proper thing to do. Accepting that does not mean accepting speculation about CAGW as science.
Thank you. Faith has a very important place in human life, but science - a process that reveals facts about material reality - should not require faith. If facts are in dispute, the proper scientific course is to continue investigating and performing experiments in order to produce better information.
Demanding heresy trials and executions for “deniers” is not scientific behavior but the evil behavior of religious zealots.
You make rather sweeping claims -- with little evidence provided.
Classical mechanics remains a very useful and accurate set of tools -- at least on the macro scale. (Consider the aerodynamic forces acting on your aircraft...) Please explain how Heisenberg negated the major premises of classical mechanics.
~~~~~~~~~
"He [Laplace] was incorrect."
Please explain how/why Laplace (in your opinion) was "wrong". Do you not consider the Creator to fit that description?
~~~~~~~~~
"One should be very, very careful about making sweeping conclusions even based on theories that have great validity."
Read your own "sweeping" claims above -- in light of your own statement.
And more. bttt
["These are] the people who persistently conflate science and scientism, and then accuse us of somehow being "anti-science."
HERE:
bttt
Republican candidates should NOT answer these fools according to their folly, but instead, answer them ACCORDING to their folly:
There are several theories of evolution, which one are you referring to?"
One who insists that -- or behaves as if -- science is a "belief system" (rather than a system of evidence gathering and analysis) is truly "anti-science". And one who insists that scientific fact is the product of human "consensus" is a particularly stupid or duplicitous antiscientist.
TXnMA
My guess is that you will be in general agreement with my #18. '-)
Yes, I agree with 18. Excellent summary.
And I agree with your #19, too. I don’t find that my knowledge of science, such as it is, is in conflict with my religious faith.
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.