I really hate the term "settled science"

Dont forget the prefix term to evolutions. lol

"Micro" lol

Everything is evolution, just cause you chose to isolate a proof does not separate it from overall evolution.

a reply to: luciddream

Yes and no. There really is a scientific definition for microevolution (and macroevolution). There just isn't a mechanism that prevents one from becoming the other that we know about. So someone isn't inherently wrong for using that term like is the case for using "settled science", but it is often misused. Though it is also most often misused by the science deniers. Again, both science supporters and deniers use "settled science".

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Again we agree. This should not be in the rant section , but in some form of universal truth forum. The only settled science is that so far nothing is settled
Peace, (no devil face on this one)

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Never heard of the term, but there is, as you say, settled science.

Relativity is settled. Mathematics, the science of numbers, is settled. It's the science that we don't know that bugs us and makes us butt heads.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Untrue. Mathematics has new theories posited for it. There IS such a thing as cutting edge mathematics. Relativity isn't settled either. Just because something is largely undisputed doesn't make it "settled".

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There are ZERO topics within science that are settled.

Not only is knowledge the very root of the word, knowledge/facts/"settled science" is the founding principle of the philosophy - the axiom, in other words.

Science is a philosophy which holds that empirical evidence (the substance of repeatable and provable observations) is not only a way to find truth, but is truth/knowledge - hence the word 'science'.

Really what you should be saying is that people suck at science, and most interpretations are wrong, as people make them based on inconclusive evidence. I mean, I think that is what you are trying to argue, because, if you're not, if you really believe that science is not settled, then you do not believe in actual science. Instead, what you would be believing in is more of a bastardized apologetic philosophy which stands in stark contrast to what science actually is: knowledge of, and byway of, settled/proven observations [of evidence].

I *think* most people can understand that current theories are subject to change. The problem is when conclusions are drawn which results in a course of action that is based on science that cannot be empirically proven. i.e. - "Eggs are bad for you, don't eat them..."

a reply to: Krazysh0t



Me too. Anyone who would make such a statement is a complete and total idiot.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

The point is that even the most definitely proven theories still change. Clearly nothing is settled there. Today's theory of evolution will look way different from the theory of evolution 100 years from now. Sure, the core of the theory will remain consistent, but we find new evidence all the time that fills in more holes. That isn't settled.

To me, saying the term "settled science" is like saying that there is nothing more to learn about this topic and we know all there is to know about it.

a reply to: network dude

You'll get no arguments from me here. I don't care if he does agree with me, that term is wrong.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree with you on this. I think to claim that we "KNOW" everything there is to know about climate change is idiotic.
But Obama kind of coined the phrase "the science is settled" with that state of the union.

We may even find that the Earth is more resilient than we thought and it can rebound and cool off, all without our help.
It will be interesting to see the reactions if that is the case.

a reply to: network dude

But Obama kind of coined the phrase "the science is settled" with that state of the union.

According to this Wikipedia article, the first time this phrase was used was in 1997:

According to Sovereignty International, in 1997 Robert Watson: was asked in a press briefing about the growing number of climate scientists who challenge the conclusions of the UN that man-induced global warming is real and promises cataclysmic consequences. Watson responded by denigrating all dissenting scientists as pawns of the fossil fuel industry. "The science is settled" he said, and "we're not going to reopen it here." [6] Some GWT supporters suggest the quote is a fabrication, noting that the organization quoting Watson is involved in promoting "global warming skepticism". No other records of the press briefing have been produced.

BHO says some stupid stuff on occasion, but he's not to blame for this one.


-dex

Term is mostly used by anti-scientist...

I think that slang of the word will move more toward 'most scientist believe it to be true', that is my take and the way I see it, but when hit with facts, for example global change deniers... we learn that 'settled' can only mean - we are living changes in climate / we can see results already... I am sure I've used it before as counterargument.

Good rant tho... are you settled science is not settled??


Just listen this fact-producing-what-you-will-do about-it...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Let me just get this out of the way quick. If you say the term "settled science", "the science is settled, or some other variation of that phrase you are WRONG. There are ZERO topics within science that are settled. Science is expanding its knowledgebase for EVERY theory on the books. This includes controversial theories such as evolution or climate change as well as accepted ones such as cell theory or the theory of gravity.

Now, normally I see this phrase coming from scientific illiterate people as a derisive way to sarcastically mock a specific scientific theory, but I've seen science minded people use it before. So this thread is ranting at everyone who uses it. First, if you are against a certain theory (say Climate Change or Evolution) and are trying to be cute by using the term "settled science" followed by a situation where science has moved on, you only are highlighting your scientific illiteracy instead of making a sick burn against science. If you are a science minded person and use this phrase, you look like a fool.

Now I can accept that some science minded people try to use that term as a way to suggest that a theory is correct. I DO understand what you mean there, but keep in mind, most people on these forums who debate against science aren't reading the evidence correctly. And you are trying to relay a phrase that requires the listener to understand the subtle nuances of how you are saying it. Just don't do it. Find another phrase. It just gives science deniers ammo to continue the strawman debates they create around whatever theory they don't believe in.

Science deniers, science doesn't have to be settled to be accurate. If you find an instance where a small part of a theory turns out to be wrong, that DOESN'T mean that the theory is flawed. That is how science works. Everything in science is incomplete. So if you have a problem with a theory because it doesn't answer such and such question, your reasoning is flawed. No theory answers every question. If it did, it would be called the "Theory of Everything".

Thank you.

I have had many posts saying the exact same thing.

Science is ever changing, and evolving. To suggest that ANYTHING science related is "settled" is foolhardy and conceited to say the least.

And yes, the AGW alarmists use this quote A LOT. And they do indeed use it to attempt to "shame silence" anyone who attempts to challenge their personal beliefs on the subject.

People (like myself, admittedly) who do challenge AGW, are not denying science, we're asking for BETTER science than what we have had.

Freeman Dyson agrees :

www.cnsnews.com...

Sorry for the "Conservative" source, but the left will hardly report this with anything close to fairness.

www.thegwpf.org...

Maybe they're wrong too, but that's the whole point isn't it?

Science should be about promoting knowledge, not advancing an unproven, flawed, model based agenda.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

wow Krazy, from reading many of your posts I am quite impressed on your view on this. I have been saying this sort of thing for years. Just think about it philosophically even. It's hard to fathom a certain conclusion. Heck, how do we know our universe is not compared to size of an atom to something else...

Graffik

originally posted by: poncho1982
Thank you.

I have had many posts saying the exact same thing.

Science is ever changing, and evolving. To suggest that ANYTHING science related is "settled" is foolhardy and conceited to say the least.

And yes, the AGW alarmists use this quote A LOT. And they do indeed use it to attempt to "shame silence" anyone who attempts to challenge their personal beliefs on the subject.

People (like myself, admittedly) who do challenge AGW, are not denying science, we're asking for BETTER science than what we have had.

Freeman Dyson agrees :

www.cnsnews.com...

Sorry for the "Conservative" source, but the left will hardly report this with anything close to fairness.

www.thegwpf.org...

Maybe they're wrong too, but that's the whole point isn't it?

Science should be about promoting knowledge, not advancing an unproven, flawed, model based agenda.

What are you talking about???

You should have followed my link one post before yours before posting that...

climate.nasa.gov...

It is clear what majority of scientist tell us... (can I use term 'settled science now'? )

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: poncho1982
Thank you.

I have had many posts saying the exact same thing.

Science is ever changing, and evolving. To suggest that ANYTHING science related is "settled" is foolhardy and conceited to say the least.

And yes, the AGW alarmists use this quote A LOT. And they do indeed use it to attempt to "shame silence" anyone who attempts to challenge their personal beliefs on the subject.

People (like myself, admittedly) who do challenge AGW, are not denying science, we're asking for BETTER science than what we have had.

Freeman Dyson agrees :

www.cnsnews.com...

Sorry for the "Conservative" source, but the left will hardly report this with anything close to fairness.

www.thegwpf.org...

Maybe they're wrong too, but that's the whole point isn't it?

Science should be about promoting knowledge, not advancing an unproven, flawed, model based agenda.

What are you talking about???

You should have followed my link one post before yours before posting that...

climate.nasa.gov...

It is clear what majority of scientist tell us... (can I use term 'settled science now'?

)

Did you see the groups on that list?

The AMA? Really?

I'll trust Freeman Dyson, a renowned physicist, over them any day.

originally posted by: poncho1982
Did you see the groups on that list?

The AMA? Really?

I'll trust Freeman Dyson, a renowned physicist, over them any day.

Sure,

you can trust single scientist over global issue about something that is not even his field.

EDIT:
What is even worst - he does not deny that humans are responsible for change, only what he is not sure if current model predict correctly how big change is going to be?!


So, are you trying to say it's not settled science??

But, let's talk for a sec about AMA - shouldn't they be involved and prepared for example to help us with tropical medical conditions in NA and Canada???

www.ama-assn.org.../resources/html/PolicyFinder/policyfiles/HnE/H-135.938.HTM

I am not even sure why I complain, global weather change will make my vacations cheaper... sea will come closer to my home in MI.

a reply to: SuperFrog

It's hard to say who uses it more. Deniers will say that believers use it more often and believers will say that deniers use it more often. It's all skewed by our perception biases. The best course of action is to just not use it and encourage others not to use it. Sometimes that means calling out people on your side of the argument though, but if that person was truly looking to improve his position honestly and not just arguing based on rhetoric alone he'd acknowledge his mistake and correct himself.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SuperFrog

It's hard to say who uses it more. Deniers will say that believers use it more often and believers will say that deniers use it more often. It's all skewed by our perception biases. The best course of action is to just not use it and encourage others not to use it. Sometimes that means calling out people on your side of the argument though, but if that person was truly looking to improve his position honestly and not just arguing based on rhetoric alone he'd acknowledge his mistake and correct himself.

10-4

Acknowledged and feel guilty...