There is a large difference between constructive critque and wilfull ignorance.
All scientific papers should be critiqued.
U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds
|
U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds
Altimaomega said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Send a sensory device the size of a small car to a planet 30 million miles away: "Yeah, that's cool. Why not?" Discover previously unconfirmed elementary constituents of matter by smashing particles together at near light speeds: "Wow, science can do such interesting things!" Describe and predict current and future climate deviations from baseline levels based on well-substantiated physical theory and supported by enormous amounts of observational evidence: "NOW HOLD THE *** PHONE SAVE THAT ***FOR SYFY MOVIES SCIENCE IS DUMB IT'S COLD IN MY ROOM THEREFORE POTATO" But then again, for you, hypothesis = fact. Da derp dee derp da teetley derpee derpee dumb Fix'd. People putting far too much effort into this guy. Bahamut.Kara said: » There is a large difference between constructive critque and wilfull ignorance. All scientific papers should be critiqued. Peer review is one of the cornerstones of the scientific process. Science isn't biased, but Scientists can be.
[+]
Bahamut.Kara said: » There is a large difference between constructive critque and wilfull ignorance. All scientific papers should be critiqued. Or you know, denying all science because. Magic underwear. Shiva.Onorgul said: » Lye said: » I always told undergrads that science is a verb, not a noun. It's a sort of anti-mysticism: make it seem so mundane as to be beneath even the dumbest puddle of diarrhea listing through a gutter. At least when you write delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, you give the appearance of knowing what the hell you're saying and intrigue interest in finding out what was just said. I disagree. Allow me to illustrate using a simple substitution in your quote: Shiva.Onorgul said: » And I hate you for it. The near-fetishization of knowledge gained by systematic study and experimentation, to the point of treating it as a verb, by current youth culture, especially on the internet, is almost certainly at the heart of the problem. It might not be the cause, but it is a symptom. People have always seen knowledge gained by systematic study and experimentation as some kind of magic (c.f., Arthur C. Clarke's famous quotation), but it has gotten so much worse that we now refer to knowledge gained by systematic study and experimentationing or "doing knowledge gained by systematic study and experimentation" instead of saying something more appropriate. It's a sort of anti-mysticism: make it seem so mundane as to be beneath even the dumbest puddle of diarrhea listing through a gutter. At least when you write delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, you give the appearance of knowing what the hell you're saying and intrigue interest in finding out what was just said. I understand you don't like the "wow science is rad" stuff. But the scientific process doesn't belong to the intellectual elite. Your second paragraph leads me to believe you are more interested in how others think of you than the search for truth.
[+]
Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Altimaomega said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Send a sensory device the size of a small car to a planet 30 million miles away: "Yeah, that's cool. Why not?" Discover previously unconfirmed elementary constituents of matter by smashing particles together at near light speeds: "Wow, science can do such interesting things!" Describe and predict current and future climate deviations from baseline levels based on well-substantiated physical theory and supported by enormous amounts of observational evidence: "NOW HOLD THE *** PHONE SAVE THAT ***FOR SYFY MOVIES SCIENCE IS DUMB IT'S COLD IN MY ROOM THEREFORE POTATO" But then again, for you, hypothesis = fact. He also must believe that science (AKA hypothesis testing) did these things and not Engineering. My god, stick to milk. Bahamut.Kara said: » Altimaomega said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Send a sensory device the size of a small car to a planet 30 million miles away: "Yeah, that's cool. Why not?" Discover previously unconfirmed elementary constituents of matter by smashing particles together at near light speeds: "Wow, science can do such interesting things!" Describe and predict current and future climate deviations from baseline levels based on well-substantiated physical theory and supported by enormous amounts of observational evidence: "NOW HOLD THE *** PHONE SAVE THAT ***FOR SYFY MOVIES SCIENCE IS DUMB IT'S COLD IN MY ROOM THEREFORE POTATO" But then again, for you, hypothesis = fact. He also must believe that science (AKA hypothesis testing) did these things and not Engineering. What the hell do you think engineering is if it is not science? The entire debate has been over hypothesis testing a simple little scientific tool. While of coarse engineering has that tool, its not the only one that was used to build the machines capable of sending stuff to other planets and smashing atoms together. Yet you guys wanna use one simple little tool to present biased data as fact and then compare it to building modern marvels.
[+]
Lye said: » Shiva.Onorgul said: » Lye said: » I always told undergrads that science is a verb, not a noun. It's a sort of anti-mysticism: make it seem so mundane as to be beneath even the dumbest puddle of diarrhea listing through a gutter. At least when you write delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, you give the appearance of knowing what the hell you're saying and intrigue interest in finding out what was just said. I disagree. Allow me to illustrate using a simple substitution in your quote: Shiva.Onorgul said: » And I hate you for it. The near-fetishization of knowledge gained by systematic study and experimentation, to the point of treating it as a verb, by current youth culture, especially on the internet, is almost certainly at the heart of the problem. It might not be the cause, but it is a symptom. People have always seen knowledge gained by systematic study and experimentation as some kind of magic (c.f., Arthur C. Clarke's famous quotation), but it has gotten so much worse that we now refer to knowledge gained by systematic study and experimentationing or "doing knowledge gained by systematic study and experimentation" instead of saying something more appropriate. It's a sort of anti-mysticism: make it seem so mundane as to be beneath even the dumbest puddle of diarrhea listing through a gutter. At least when you write delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, you give the appearance of knowing what the hell you're saying and intrigue interest in finding out what was just said. I understand you don't like the "wow science is rad" stuff. But the scientific process doesn't belong to the intellectual elite. Your second paragraph leads me to believe you are more interested in how others think of you than the search for truth. Basically, people who use the word "science" as a verb are essentially poseurs. Am I being clear enough? Bahamut.Ravael said: » There is enough evidence to reasonably assume that climate change is being expedited by human activity. That being said, it's really, really stupid to assume that the methods used to study it are above critique. The study that Pleebo posted has flaws. Frick, my field of study more or less revolves around finding flaws in studies where scientists tried as hard as possible to follow correct procedures but blow it due to false assumptions and methods. Pretending that any study is above critique is as stupid as outright denying everything it says. - Don't have the fundamental knowledge/terminology/experience to understand the subject matter - Blindly repeat what someone else has declared to be true, without due diligence That isn't to say that a layperson can't understand, or educate themselves. But the simple matter is that most do not or will not. You guys hear that? Data is biased now. Because numbers care what you think of them.
Odin.Zicdeh said: » You guys hear that, Data is biased now. Because numbers care what you think of them.
[+]
Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Bahamut.Kara said: » There is a large difference between constructive critque and wilfull ignorance. All scientific papers should be critiqued. Or you know, denying all science because. Magic underwear. What is it with you and magic underwear?
[+]
Shiva.Onorgul said: » Interpretation of data is biased. Hell, go talk to a mathematician and ask him/her if 2 + 2 equals 4. If s/he is feeling honest, the answer is "Not always." That's absolutely true [Science isn't biased, Scientists can be]. But Altimaomega didn't say "interpretation of data" now did he?
[+]
Shiva.Onorgul said: » Basically, people who use the word "science" as a verb are essentially poseurs. Am I being clear enough? Again, I disagree. Those that acknowledge that "science" means the active process of experimentation that CAN yield insight into how or why something occurs are in no way "poseurs." Furthermore, I'm inclined to think that anyone that uses the term "poseur" needs to get a grip on reality.
[+]
Altimaomega said: » Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Altimaomega said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Send a sensory device the size of a small car to a planet 30 million miles away: "Yeah, that's cool. Why not?" Discover previously unconfirmed elementary constituents of matter by smashing particles together at near light speeds: "Wow, science can do such interesting things!" Describe and predict current and future climate deviations from baseline levels based on well-substantiated physical theory and supported by enormous amounts of observational evidence: "NOW HOLD THE *** PHONE SAVE THAT ***FOR SYFY MOVIES SCIENCE IS DUMB IT'S COLD IN MY ROOM THEREFORE POTATO" But then again, for you, hypothesis = fact. He also must believe that science (AKA hypothesis testing) did these things and not Engineering. My god, stick to milk. Bahamut.Kara said: » Altimaomega said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Send a sensory device the size of a small car to a planet 30 million miles away: "Yeah, that's cool. Why not?" Discover previously unconfirmed elementary constituents of matter by smashing particles together at near light speeds: "Wow, science can do such interesting things!" Describe and predict current and future climate deviations from baseline levels based on well-substantiated physical theory and supported by enormous amounts of observational evidence: "NOW HOLD THE *** PHONE SAVE THAT ***FOR SYFY MOVIES SCIENCE IS DUMB IT'S COLD IN MY ROOM THEREFORE POTATO" But then again, for you, hypothesis = fact. He also must believe that science (AKA hypothesis testing) did these things and not Engineering. What the hell do you think engineering is if it is not science? The entire debate has been over hypothesis testing a simple little scientific tool. While of coarse engineering has that tool, its not the only one that was used to build the machines capable of sending stuff to other planets and smashing atoms together. Yet you guys wanna use one simple little tool to present biased data as fact and then compare it to building modern marvels. Was it the tool, upon which every other tool was built? *** yes. To use an analogy, you are trying to get milk by killing a cow. You might get a litle milk by accident, but you probably wouldn't run your dairy farm that way. Odin.Zicdeh said: » Shiva.Onorgul said: » Interpretation of data is biased. Hell, go talk to a mathematician and ask him/her if 2 + 2 equals 4. If s/he is feeling honest, the answer is "Not always." That's absolutely true [Science isn't biased, Scientists can be]. But Altimaomega didn't say "interpretation of data" now did he? I forgot that your totally ignorant and I need to write out an essay for you to even try and understand the basic's of skepticism. To which you would reply with one word... Derp Bahamut.Milamber said: » Altimaomega said: » Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Altimaomega said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Send a sensory device the size of a small car to a planet 30 million miles away: "Yeah, that's cool. Why not?" Discover previously unconfirmed elementary constituents of matter by smashing particles together at near light speeds: "Wow, science can do such interesting things!" Describe and predict current and future climate deviations from baseline levels based on well-substantiated physical theory and supported by enormous amounts of observational evidence: "NOW HOLD THE *** PHONE SAVE THAT ***FOR SYFY MOVIES SCIENCE IS DUMB IT'S COLD IN MY ROOM THEREFORE POTATO" But then again, for you, hypothesis = fact. He also must believe that science (AKA hypothesis testing) did these things and not Engineering. My god, stick to milk. Bahamut.Kara said: » Altimaomega said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Send a sensory device the size of a small car to a planet 30 million miles away: "Yeah, that's cool. Why not?" Discover previously unconfirmed elementary constituents of matter by smashing particles together at near light speeds: "Wow, science can do such interesting things!" Describe and predict current and future climate deviations from baseline levels based on well-substantiated physical theory and supported by enormous amounts of observational evidence: "NOW HOLD THE *** PHONE SAVE THAT ***FOR SYFY MOVIES SCIENCE IS DUMB IT'S COLD IN MY ROOM THEREFORE POTATO" But then again, for you, hypothesis = fact. He also must believe that science (AKA hypothesis testing) did these things and not Engineering. What the hell do you think engineering is if it is not science? The entire debate has been over hypothesis testing a simple little scientific tool. While of coarse engineering has that tool, its not the only one that was used to build the machines capable of sending stuff to other planets and smashing atoms together. Yet you guys wanna use one simple little tool to present biased data as fact and then compare it to building modern marvels. Was it the tool, upon which every other tool was built? *** yes. To use an analogy, you are trying to get milk by killing a cow. You might get a litle milk by accident, but you probably wouldn't run your dairy farm that way. I wouldn't run anything using only one tool, but it seems that this entire debate keep's getting drawn back to ONLY ONE TOOL! Lye said: » Again, I disagree. Those that acknowledge that "science" means the active process of experimentation that CAN yield insight into how or why something occurs are in no way "poseurs." They are scientists. You seem to think I'm saying that science and scientists are bad. Far from. I do appreciate, though, that you seem to hold my specialty in so little regard. You may consider drinking a bucket of your name as your reward. Bahamut.Ravael said: » Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Bahamut.Kara said: » There is a large difference between constructive critque and wilfull ignorance. All scientific papers should be critiqued. Or you know, denying all science because. Magic underwear. What is it with you and magic underwear? Meet my magic potato. Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Bahamut.Kara said: » There is a large difference between constructive critque and wilfull ignorance. All scientific papers should be critiqued. Or you know, denying all science because. Magic underwear. What is it with you and magic underwear? Meet my magic potato. Oh no! My only weakness! Global warming nut jobs sound just as absurd as the religious people they frequently try and mock.
"We've angered the earth and we must atone for our sins." Your 'scientists' are nothing more than big tent revival priests who tap into your own sense of guilt and offer you salvation from it for the right price.....
[+]
Shiva.Onorgul said: » Lye said: » Again, I disagree. Those that acknowledge that "science" means the active process of experimentation that CAN yield insight into how or why something occurs are in no way "poseurs." They are scientists. You seem to think I'm saying that science and scientists are bad. Far from. I do appreciate, though, that you seem to hold my specialty in so little regard. You may consider drinking a bucket of your name as your reward. I'm a biochemist. I'm also a scientist. Go figure! Seriously? "Poseur?" Your "specialty?" I think you need to get over yourself.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Global warming nut jobs sound just as absurd as the religious people they frequently try and mock. "We've poisoned the earth and damaged almost all of it's natural resources. We must atone for our sins." FTFY Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Meet my magic potato.
[+]
It finally got warm out today, I guess this whole warming thing is true after all.
[+]
Altimaomega said: » The entire debate has been over hypothesis testing a simple little scientific tool. While of coarse engineering has that tool, its not the only one that was used to build the machines capable of sending stuff to other planets and smashing atoms together. Yet you guys wanna use one simple little tool to present biased data as fact and then compare it to building modern marvels. There was a large amount of testing (hypothesis testing) done before anyone built a physical object. Hell there is testing after an object is built. There is a documentary of how the LHC was built, pretty interesting. A lot planning and testing went on before anything was built. Altimaomega said: » You are complaining about someone only using female cows to produce milk at their dairy farm.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Global warming nut jobs sound just as absurd as the religious people they frequently try and mock. "We've angered the earth and we must atone for our sins." Your 'scientists' are nothing more than big tent revival priests who tap into your own sense of guilt and offer you salvation from it for the right price..... YouTube Video Placeholder I prefer to kick the earths *** on extreme mode. |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.