Posted on 01/16/2016 1:21:47 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
In classrooms across the country, high school students are taught the scientific method. It consists of constructing a doubtful hypothesis and designing a series of experiments to test the hypothesis with the observable facts. After a number of tests prove positive. The student can then take the facts and reach a conclusion. When a conclusion is constantly verified,it is enshrined in what might be called "established" science.
There is a second kind of science that uses methods very different from those of "established" science. In fact,this science,if indeed it might be called such, uses the exact opposite method. It consists of constructing a conclusion and then testing that conclusion with a hypothesis that is repeated over and over again using doubtful data to back it up.
The "logic" of this particular scientific method is that the truth of the conclusion is determined by the number of times the hypothesis is affirmed. With enough repetition,even the data starts to take on the appearance of the truth. The secret is to get as many people and media as possible to parrot the great discovery. At a certain point,the conclusion can be enshrined in a special pantheon that might be called "settled" science,and woe betide any "denier" who dare question it.
Like its cousin "settled" law, "settled" science can be useful even outside its field. It can be employed to silence opposition, impose laws and promote political agendas. It respects no rank or positions. August researchers and famous professors can be toppled from their positions if they express the slightest doubts about a "settled" position. Even the strongest evidence is ignored with disdain and disbelief. Meanwhile the hypothesis mantra is just repeated over and over again.
"Settled" science cases abound in today's politically-correct times......
....reality itself must be altered to conform to the agendas of the liberal establishment...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
For those who might entertain the thought of settled science....there are over 600 scientific fields. As of this date in history....only one single field is settled at present or we are told of it’s settlement. The odds of having a settled science? Statistical wizards would tell you it’d be one in a billion.
Even to this date....there are still hundreds across the globe trying to put down Einstein’s theories....of which some have been on the books for almost a hundred years. Yet the term ‘settled’ has yet to appear on Einstein’s thoughts.
By its very nature, there cannot ever be something that could be honestly called “settled science”.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.” The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways, including making further observations about nature. In general, the strongest tests of hypotheses come from carefully controlled and replicated experiments that gather empirical data. Depending on how well the tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported a general theory may be developed.
The “climate scientists” have run roughshod over this process, first constructing a conclusion, THEN going back and trying to fit highly selective facts to the conclusion. By ignoring some, or even much, of the data observed, and applying something called “the finagle factor”, Voila! - the “right” answer comes out. This is the method of the charlatans and the snake-oil salesmen, and has as much to do with true science, as long philosophical arguments concerning how many angels may dance upon the point of a pin.
At this point, they are just talking out their rectal orifices.
Climate scientists seem to have a habit of cherry-picking data that fits their desired conclusion, and discarding the rest. They basically admitted to it in the IPCC which led to “climate gate”. NASA scientists, namely James Hansen, have been known to actually alter data to fit the global warming template. Liberals still view this as legitimate science, however, which demonstrates that their personal integrity does not survive their political aspiration. Climate science seem to be based on “consensus”, not observation and experimentation, which is what for a thousand years led everyone to believe that the sun went around the earth. But that is not considered science today, and “progressive” liberals are stuck in the dark ages in this respect.
When bureaucrats regulate science, disagreeing with them lands you in the gulag - like with man made global warming. Its the entrenched academics who live off government grants who are most vocal that global warming deniers be detained and eliminated. Afterall, that upsets their applecart of perpetual employment at the expense of the taxpaying serfs.
There is some ‘settled science’. Like the spectrum of hydrogen for instance. The red shift of distant galaxies, the speed of like in a vacuum..
But climate ‘science’ is far from settled because it can be used to justify anything. There’s no ‘observation’, it’s all prediction. And worse, anything that is observed ‘fits’ with the predictions as they are always in flux. We’ve had only a few hundred years of solid weather reports, it leaves out the influence of the sun, and it has other issues.
If a climate scientist said the sea will rise by 5 inches in the next 5 years and it does, then that’s at least something. Right now it’s ‘it may go up or down or neither, but it all fits the model’.
Also part of the scientific method is the necessity of reproducible results...unless,of course,that dastardly mental disorder keeps getting in the way.
A hypothesis must be falsifiable - testable.
Settled science does not hurt ones self esteem.
Excellent.
The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs describe well the means to the desired outcome — pick any conclusion, and then find (or define) the rationale to get there.
>> There is some ‘settled science’. Like the spectrum of hydrogen for instance
No. ‘settled science’ is a pejorative.
I postulate that red shift has more to do with gravitational field than Doppler effect, so there goes red Shift. A issue is not settled if two people disagree.
Save Us from the Tyranny of 'Settled' Science
Absolutely. An Oxymoron. But also ...
Save Us from the Tyranny of 'Settled' Law
The latter oxymoron has recently been uttered by the likes of Cruz, Levin, Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly, Beck.
Corrupted Science. Corrupted Politics. Corrupted Political Science. Political Correctness. It's all Corrupt.
Settled science law is the liberal progressive socialist dream. We have settled the argument over global warming, this case is closed we will now have access to your bank accounts to fund this lie
I don’t know any nerds that are trying to put down Einstein’s work, but they are trying to improve some problems with general relativity. In particular we need to determine the true value of his cosmological constant to determine the true geometric nature of the universe. Any new theory in all likelihood should reduce to Al’s work under some conditions, just like for slow speeds special relativity is basically Newton’s theory.
Impossible, it’s Doppler.
geocentrism, phlogiston, phrenology and the four humours were once settled science.
srbfl
And am throwing this out there to see who bites.
There are those people, using the Michelson-Morley experiments as a foundation, state that the universe DOES rotate around the Earth. And supposedly have the mathematics to PROVE it.
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.