It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Outlier13

So, no examples.
Okey.


Oh, I already gave you the BEST example. Your buddy Al Gore. And since you self admittedly know more about ol' Al than anyone else then by default you already have access to all the "scientific evidence" you could ask for. What part of this are you not comprehending?




posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: The GUT

He didn't say that he invented the internet.

As far as being a shill, I don't know. But climate science is not scientifically bankrupt. By a long shot.


No, he said he created it.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13




And since you self admittedly know more about ol' Al than anyone else

Another straw man argument.
Go on, set up another one for yourself if it makes you feel like you know what you're talking about.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 01:39 AM
link   
My take on the Man-Made Climate Change issue.

It is real, but no-where as acute as they are making out. From what I have seen in my own country (New Zealand ) it is a distraction from the far more immediate issue of ground and water pollution.

If you want to do a study on ground and water pollution, there is no grant money from the Govt to be had. Even though most of our rivers are undrinkable and un-swimable now. But they will fund any and all research into Climate Change.

Why...?

Using forensic analysis you can track almost any ground and water pollution to an actual factory or farm. Which would or should result in a fine to that business.

But if you go on about climate change, who is really to blame ? All of us right. So we all get fined ( carbon taxed ) .

The perfect no-result result. All our leaders gets to pretend to care, whilst protecting industry polluters from ever being directly held accountable.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I'll PM you the specific question you're looking for in order to avoid derailing the thread. But I'm about to head to bed so it may be tomorrow. And I'm not dodging you! I seriously would like to have this discussion.

a reply to: Outlier13

The answer to your first question, yes. We've had many conversations about this over the years. I've known him for about ten years which was before he earned his PhD, and much has happened in the world of science since then.

The answer to your second question is also yes but nothing is ever so simple.

Perhaps I will humble you, Outlier, and the rest of ATS with an in detail thread about this issue in the near future.

S&F for the thought provoking thread.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Outlier13




And since you self admittedly know more about ol' Al than anyone else

Another straw man argument.
Go on, set up another one for yourself if it makes you feel like you know what you're talking about.


You don't actually understand the application of a straw man argument do you?



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom

Perhaps I will humble you, Outlier, and the rest of ATS with an in detail thread about this issue in the near future.

S&F for the thought provoking thread.


Please do. I have a close friend in the archeology community who has made some very similar statements as your friend.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13

Actually, I do.
You claimed that I said something which I did not say.
yourlogicalfallacyis.com...



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13


You don't actually understand the application of a straw man argument do you?


He damn well does... Phage is the invocation of 'straw man' on crack.

Sometimes that's a good thing, but often leads to what I refer to as:

Debunking Troll Syndrome - it will be in the next issue of the DSM-V.

*cough* It's late fellas. Talk to you all tomorrow.


edit on 3/31/2017 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: The GUT

He didn't say that he invented the internet.

As far as being a shill, I don't know. But climate science is not scientifically bankrupt. By a long shot.

I know he basically misspoke and meant something else but what a goob.

Do you have any comment on the assertion in the OP about the lack of scientific method in the journals?



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13


Please do. I have a close friend in the archeology community who has made some very similar statements as your friend.


I'll make a mental note on that and remind myself to talk to you more about that tomorrow. Perhaps we can collaborate on a thread together, if I can finish at least one of the 3 I'm working on right now.


edit on 3/31/2017 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: The GUT

I asked several pointed questions in regard to the content of the OP, since the OP didn't really provide much in the way of comment of his own. Except for this gem:


My comments: "Man made" climate change exposed for the hoax / joke that it has always been.

Perhaps the discussion could continue in regard to "hoax/joke" if there were responses to any of my inquiries.


edit on 3/31/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Outlier13


Please do. I have a close friend in the archeology community who has made some very similar statements as your friend.


I'll make a mental not on that and remind myself to talk to you more about that tomorrow. Perhaps we can collaborate on a thread together, if I can finish at least one of the 3 I'm working on right now.


Not to be mysterious but I would genuinely need to ask him what I could realistically print versus not. Some of what he has shared with me is very disturbing.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13


Not to be mysterious but I would genuinely need to ask him what I could realistically print versus not. Some of what he has shared with me is very disturbing.


My friend has this same dilemma as well. He knows I write a lot for ATS and is willing to act as a consultant to me on some very intimate NIST scandals (nothing regarding 9/11) but I have made a promise not to disclose his name on here for privacy reasons.

Ok ok...gnight.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Outlier13

Actually, I do.
You claimed that I said something which I did not say.
yourlogicalfallacyis.com...


You had to Google that? I wasn't asking you to provide me proof you knew the proper application of the use of "straw man argument". I asked a rhetorical question. If you took any of that exchange as a legitimate "argument" then you must take this subject personally. If you take it personally then you are either someone overly emotional regarding topics that literally have no impact on you in your daily life or you are someone who works in the field.

Now Apophis is something I can get behind that could do some serious changing of our climate. But as far as ol' Al and his bag of lies goes...not so much. But you already know that because you know him better than than me. Are you Al Gore?



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13

J Scott Armstrong. Professor of marketing. Sounds just the guy to go to about climate change...



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13

You had to Google that?
No.

Here is your question:

You don't actually understand the application of a straw man argument do you?
Can you explain how that was a rhetorical question? What do you think my rhetorical answer may have been?



edit on 3/31/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 02:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Outlier13

You had to Google that?
No.

Here is your question:

You don't actually understand the application of a straw man argument do you?
Can you explain how that was a rhetorical question? What do you think my rhetorical answer may have been?




Nope you don't get to deviate from your original topic. I already answered you with a response but you did not like it so you interjected with the classical liberal response. Then I called you out on your misuse and then sent you a metaphor which you missed as well.

My responding with the Al Gore reference is all you need to know. Since you self admittedly know Al Gore better than me then why would I spend time reiterating what it is you already know? If you know Al Gore better than me then what could I possibly contribute that would ad to what you already know? Eh?

Al Gore is so full of BS and has long promoted a false narrative to serve a massive global agenda. Gore has personally profited off of this false narrative for a very long time. I don't need to provide evidence of this because it's in the public domain free for your reading pleasure. He is hypocrisy personified. But this thread isn't about ol' Al and his hypocrisy. It's about the glaring fact that if you don't employ the scientific method when promoting "scientific evidence" then you don't have any evidence at all. Regardless of the subject matter. It's all just BS.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Prof. J. Scott Armstrong is Professor of Marketing at Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

An expert on prognosis research, Scott Armstrong is one of the most internationally renowned scholars in this field. His most well-known works include Long-Range Forecasting (1985) and Principles of Forecasting (2001). In recent years, Scott Armstrong has been primarily concerned with the prognosis of elections and political conflicts. He is one of the founders of the prognosis portal PollyVote.com.

Source: www.en.cas.uni-muenchen.de...

Well, then I am at least an expert on marketing, by being subjected to it my whole life long..



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13




He says that scientists are influenced by the large government funding grants, so that they will manipulate the results to get the results that the grantors desire.


No !!! I dont believe it !!!!

This...this...cant be. You're talking about scientists here...maaaan. Utter blasphemy.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join