Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans

a reply to: yorkshirelad

The models which work are the ones which have had many of the sub aspects, verified. The whole is then tested as a working system.

Then there are the models which don't work well.

The ones which have many aspects unverified so rely on patch ups using assumptions and numerical weightings. Models may only be accurate within certain boundary conditions.

Models are a scientific tool, but they are not infallible.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

So when are you going to create a thread and work through a scientific problem. Posting emotionally charged long winded jumbled rambles is not a convincing scientific methodology, it only sounds like a person with anger syndrome. We wait in anticipation.

a reply to: tanka418

Gotta be a wind up.

Think about it, scientists themselves often reject what other scientists say, disbelieve their peers research, argue with their results and conclusions and generally attempt to discredit one another in the competition to be 'the best, brightest and most scientific scientist in all of science..ever!'....so really, the public who parrot this example of distrust and disbelief are only doing what the pro's do themselves all the time.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

youre a little late on that comment. Go back and re read the interaction with me and the others. Thats whats wrong these days NO ONE READS THE ENTIRE THREAD ANYMORE.

Yeah, I guess there was no real need for him to prove you wrong again, as everyone else has already done it. LOL. He was dead on accurate in his response however. I hope I'm not "late" in pointing out this fact.

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

So when are you going to create a thread and work through a scientific problem. Posting emotionally charged long winded jumbled rambles is not a convincing scientific methodology, it only sounds like a person with anger syndrome. We wait in anticipation.

Excuse me, it is some of you guys who attempted to create false equivalency between random opinions and faith and the scientific process. I merely explained the difference, and did so quite concisely and well. If a scientist read it, they would agree.

It is not my job nor is it the purpose of this thread to go through an entire expose of what the scientific method is, the history of science, how and why it developed out of philosophy and early attempts at information gathering, etc.

I have worked on a large number of professional research projects. For two years I worked in a research lab. I'm not going to play into your game of "doing a scientific problem" on ATS.

The fact you think my clear explanation is "rambling" once again shows you don't really have scientific education. #Basic.

Google the scientific method and its history. You will find I am correct.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: tanka418

I rely on science, and data for everything.

sadly...Science doesn't always rely on data like yourself.

Models are a new craze that's sweeping the world.

Science has always relied on models. It isn't a new craze. Models are what science uses to predict future events, and they are built by analyzing prior events.

You ARE correct, and the rest of this is directed at anyone with any facts to disprove my understanding. Those models don't become fact or factual until time and events have passed and have proven them to be true. Thus far, as far as my personal research into the GW/CC arguments, there is NO model that has proven itself to be the rule and thus, they are little more than a failed or unproven hypothetical guess.

If my information is incorrect...please correct me. But the way I understand it, regardless how many scientists "believe" in a theory, it remains a guess until it is proven. And I don't believe GW/CC (meaning man-made) has been proven. Yes...the "belief" of intelligent people may hold some weight, but there are also many intelligent people that believe in "God" and the same people that believe the scientists, disbelieve these other intelligent people. Therefore...it remains a guess. Maybe a popular guess, but a guess nonetheless.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
You ARE correct, and the rest of this is directed at anyone with any facts to disprove my understanding. Those models don't become fact or factual until time and events have passed and have proven them to be true. Thus far, as far as my personal research into the GW/CC arguments, there is NO model that has proven itself to be the rule and thus, they are little more than a failed or unproven hypothetical guess.

No model is definitively proven. All are subject to change. Models are ALWAYS just scientists' best guess as to what will happen given the evidence we have collected so far. If the models show inaccurate predictions then we need more data to make them more accurate.

If my information is incorrect...please correct me. But the way I understand it, regardless how many scientists "believe" in a theory, it remains a guess until it is proven. And I don't believe GW/CC (meaning man-made) has been proven. Yes...the "belief" of intelligent people may hold some weight, but there are also many intelligent people that believe in "God" and the same people that believe the scientists, disbelieve these other intelligent people. Therefore...it remains a guess. Maybe a popular guess, but a guess nonetheless.

A scientific theory is the closest science gets to "proven". It's not about how many scientists believe in it. If the scientific community has deemed to call it a theory then that means that more than enough evidence has been collected to support that theory. The only way to overturn it would be to overturn all that evidence. 97% of scientists agreeing that it is true is just the cherry on top, but in reality that is a bandwagon appeal fallacy.

Also, all of science is a guess. Science is just our BEST guess at the moment.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
You ARE correct, and the rest of this is directed at anyone with any facts to disprove my understanding. Those models don't become fact or factual until time and events have passed and have proven them to be true. Thus far, as far as my personal research into the GW/CC arguments, there is NO model that has proven itself to be the rule and thus, they are little more than a failed or unproven hypothetical guess.

No model is definitively proven. All are subject to change. Models are ALWAYS just scientists' best guess as to what will happen given the evidence we have collected so far. If the models show inaccurate predictions then we need more data to make them more accurate.

If my information is incorrect...please correct me. But the way I understand it, regardless how many scientists "believe" in a theory, it remains a guess until it is proven. And I don't believe GW/CC (meaning man-made) has been proven. Yes...the "belief" of intelligent people may hold some weight, but there are also many intelligent people that believe in "God" and the same people that believe the scientists, disbelieve these other intelligent people. Therefore...it remains a guess. Maybe a popular guess, but a guess nonetheless.

A scientific theory is the closest science gets to "proven". It's not about how many scientists believe in it. If the scientific community has deemed to call it a theory then that means that more than enough evidence has been collected to support that theory. The only way to overturn it would be to overturn all that evidence. 97% of scientists agreeing that it is true is just the cherry on top, but in reality that is a bandwagon appeal fallacy.

Also, all of science is a guess. Science is just our BEST guess at the moment.

Exactly, this is what they aren't getting.

The scientific method, generally speaking, is the best thing we have for gathering information, evaluating, testing, replicating, hypothesizing, making models, peer review, minimizing bias, etc. There quite simply isn't anything better at this time.

Sometimes a study or scientist or model is wrong. However, random opinions and many arguments from authority are much more often wrong AND often not tested at all. They also, just like religion, often are not open to any change nor review.

a reply to: tanka418

Facts or Truth.

The first can be manufactured, and based upon 'finding's, paid for or not. Many times decades later they find that the 'facts' were wrong. As humans, we are all fallible.

The second is beyond debate and cannot be bought, sold or paid for. Truth stands the test of time and is independent of human thoughts, bias and ego.

Some of the most respected people in history have been proven wrong - though in their day and time were 'genius'.

Don't let ego get in the way of truth. Don't let information that's easily or conveniently gained detract from what's irrefutable.

Things can 'feel' right on...but are deadly and aren't the best decision or conclusion to do. Hit your head hard? Wanna fall asleep? Bad idea. In outdoor cold weather, stuck and feel tired? Don't take that nap. Start the car in the garage, feels warm and like you wanna nap? Don't do that either. Sunbathing and get all warm and cozy, wanna take a nap...I'll be the first to pat that person on the back....hard. lol

From cow farts to car exhaust - scientists have weighed in on some very 'interesting' things. Some are true, but some are completely manufactured...follow the money. The 'facts' are usually covered in it, while the 'truth' is most often left out in unpopular belief or ridicule through and ego-ridden populace.

Trading technology for wisdom - which can sustain long term?

Satire is one thing.....

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
a reply to: tanka418

Facts or Truth.

The first can be manufactured, and based upon 'finding's, paid for or not. Many times decades later they find that the 'facts' were wrong. As humans, we are all fallible.

The second is beyond debate and cannot be bought, sold or paid for. Truth stands the test of time and is independent of human thoughts, bias and ego.

Well, don't now if you noticed or not, but, I qualified "facts" with the phrase; "real world data".

Real world data is what both facts and truth are made of...facts like yours typically result from not enough real world data, and possible a bit of misinterpretation.

Truth on the other hand is formed by a preponderance of real world data...

The best thing about "real world data" is that it is easy to get...it is literally...everywhere. One only has to collect and filter the for something specific.

What I'm trying to say is that we can only base what we think we know on real world data...and of course continue to use said real world data to refine our idea of what may be a truth.

Trading technology for wisdom - which can sustain long term?

Satire is one thing.....

One of the very best technologies actually involves nothing "physical" and actually exists a collection of idea or knowledge...guess what Wisdom is?

Yes satire is one thing...but, at times it can "drive a point home", and serve as a sort of wake-up for those who will pay attention.

By the way; I consider the method and technique I use to understand to be born of technology, after all I am a Computer Scientist, have lots of practical experience analyzing data, writing computer algorithms and code to assist in the analysis of data. But, at the end of the day...it is actually all me, and my own abilities to analyze and understand, and I receive no assistance from my machines. How's that for ego?

Now, what was that you were saying about Wisdom?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I believe the main issue here is mindset. For those who argue against science, it is because they see religion as fact. Undeniable and true despite anything that says otherwise. Therefore they cannot condone science as they see it refuting their religious beliefs. And since religion is the absolute truth, science must then be incorrect.

However they do not realize that their faith in their god is a theory only. To be a fact, there cannot be any variances in the 'god' belief. It must be absolute across the board. Even gravity is a theory as we do not have all the absolute answers as to why it behaves as it does. So, with 'god', there are three main religions that express such a belief. However these gods are not compatible in the slightest.

The only way the have an absolute belief that their god is the only true god is to ignore all contrary evidence. One must not take into serious consideration other belief structures, for by doing so would throw doubt on the validity of their own god. So in order to have absolute faith, one must be blind to all other belief structures.

The religious have made an art of disregarding the truth if it does not fit their model. If they can deny the beliefs of major societies, and even disparage others who believe differently in their same god, then denying even the smallest amount of evidence that may not be compatible with their views is child's play to them. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
a reply to: tanka418

Facts or Truth.

The first can be manufactured, and based upon 'finding's, paid for or not. Many times decades later they find that the 'facts' were wrong. As humans, we are all fallible.

The second is beyond debate and cannot be bought, sold or paid for. Truth stands the test of time and is independent of human thoughts, bias and ego.

Well, don't now if you noticed or not, but, I qualified "facts" with the phrase; "real world data".

Real world data is what both facts and truth are made of...facts like yours typically result from not enough real world data, and possible a bit of misinterpretation.

Truth on the other hand is formed by a preponderance of real world data...

The best thing about "real world data" is that it is easy to get...it is literally...everywhere. One only has to collect and filter the for something specific.

What I'm trying to say is that we can only base what we think we know on real world data...and of course continue to use said real world data to refine our idea of what may be a truth.

Trading technology for wisdom - which can sustain long term?

Satire is one thing.....

One of the very best technologies actually involves nothing "physical" and actually exists a collection of idea or knowledge...guess what Wisdom is?

Yes satire is one thing...but, at times it can "drive a point home", and serve as a sort of wake-up for those who will pay attention.

By the way; I consider the method and technique I use to understand to be born of technology, after all I am a Computer Scientist, have lots of practical experience analyzing data, writing computer algorithms and code to assist in the analysis of data. But, at the end of the day...it is actually all me, and my own abilities to analyze and understand, and I receive no assistance from my machines. How's that for ego?

Now, what was that you were saying about Wisdom?

"Real world data"

Check history for scientists and people who were considered genius for a pattern, the patterns are there....

Today information is more skewed, 'cooked' and 'paid for' than ever before.

Truth and wisdom still stand. Ego and the like doesn't. This isn't about you, nor me - it's about Truth vs. Fact. Wisdom.

*Not* saying the "Real world data" is all rubbish, there maybe/is some truth in there, but follow the money - look and question what's said. To take something as 'fact' or otherwise, purely at face value, and from the pages, pens and mouths of those who stand to profit from it without question, is just the opposite of wisdom.

If you think I'm attacking you, I'm not - read it as an open plate of food. Choose to take what you will.

I agree with you overall.

I suspect that many of the people who are deriding science, both on ATS and in the public, are either very religious, not scientifically literate, or being manipulated by pundits such as anti-climate change people who are bought and paid for by energy companies or special interests.

I agree with you that when it comes to an intellectual conflict of interest, the anti-science people fall into two main camps:

1) Religious people who refuse to accept the wealth of evidence of such things as for example an OLD EARTH, among many examples. Hence they have to look for how science is wrong, biased, etc.

2) Greedy industrialists, energy people, or otherwise simply selfish individuals who either have a monetary conflict of interest or just want to live the consumer lifestyle, and hence refuse ENVIRONMENTAL and climate science.

Both hate science because it conflicts with what they either have faith in or with their lifestyle or business model.

We really really need to increase the level of STEM education in the US. It is horrific across all generations how low it is.

I say that as a former science teacher.

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry

"Real world data"

Check history for scientists and people who were considered genius for a pattern, the patterns are there....

Today information is more skewed, 'cooked' and 'paid for' than ever before.

Truth and wisdom still stand. Ego and the like doesn't. This isn't about you, nor me - it's about Truth vs. Fact. Wisdom.

*Not* saying the "Real world data" is all rubbish, there maybe/is some truth in there, but follow the money - look and question what's said. To take something as 'fact' or otherwise, purely at face value, and from the pages, pens and mouths of those who stand to profit from it without question, is just the opposite of wisdom.

If you think I'm attacking you, I'm not - read it as an open plate of food. Choose to take what you will.

It would appear that we have vastly different ideas about what "real world data" actually is.

You seem to think that it is something that can be altered to suit, while I think of it as something a bit ore "raw" and vastly closer to nature.

Data, that is to say, real data is not something that can be changed. This "cooking" you speak of is the same as "corrupting" the data...which, ever works out quite as "engineered". Remember the old saying; "Garbage in, garbage out?" That is what you get with corrupt data...and it never fails.

The rest of the phenomenon you are talking about results from incorrect or inappropriate interpretation of the data. This is a frequent source of error, and probably the most common, even among scientists. Many times people will "see" something in the data they "want" to find, and it doesn't matter IF the data actually supports or not.

And, that is the bottom line; "Does the data support your interpretation?" It's not as simple a conditional as it might seem.

Finally, No I don't think you are attacking me. Though I do like this kind of exchange...frequently it gets me to re-think what I think I know. That is always a good thing...

a reply to: tanka418

Please, scientists are some of most fact resistant humans on the planet.

a reply to: tanka418

So they have verified the strain? if not then it is pure satire. The strain could be easily named "skepticism," and this is not a virus. Through out recorded history, think about the percentage of claimed "facts" and how those facts have stood up over time. The ones that are proven over and over are considered laws of nature, the others are theories, and data can vary over and over again in many other ways.

I would like to know which facts these researchers are talking about because each "fact" has it's own "fiction" tied within, and that is fact. A person could say it is fact that there is x billion and y thousand and z hundred people on the Earth at this moment, and proclaim fact; but in fact that is just speculation and not fact at all. Someone could proclaim it is fact that there has never been E.T.'s on Earth and give 1000 reasons why their claim is fact, and yet many believe the different, so now they are diseased people that need to be ridded of, when they may have many aspects of truth proclaiming different from the suggested truther.

This entire article is a joke and satire.

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Incredible claims require incredible proof. So far your just mouthing replies angled with personnel innuendo. Your the typical mouth who will be a debunker or skeptic, you cant offer any real data only slingy insults. So the theory of relativity its the bigger daddy of unverified science. The floor is now all yours genius to prove its fact.

what is your alternative to science?

aww how cute. a science guy ridiculing the opposing team the same way they ridicule his team. whats the point of even having different views if your gonna act the same?

Alright, let us use science. The world is flat and the sun revolves around us cause we are the center of the universe.

That was a scientific fact at one point right.