The troll thread

[trebuchet03]

Think about it objectively: if you approach evolution with a purely scientific mind, you must discard it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is for this same reason science can not discredit the potential of divine being(s).

People believed the earth was flat; they were wrong. Scientists believed horse hairs became eels when they fell in water; they were wrong. Scientists believed rotting meat turned into maggots; they were wrong. Night air gave you malaria (wrong). Tomatoes are poisonous (wrong). Heck, scientists even gave Thalidomide to expectant mothers and prescribed cigarettes.

Oceanographers speculated life existed on the ocean floor beyond where light could reach - they were right. Scientists once thought there was a correlation between black body temperature and emissivity - they were right (Stefan-Boltzmann law). A French physicist once theorized that a heat engine's work was related to the caloric drop from a hot to cold body - he was right and is accredited with being the father of thermodynamics and was right (Carnot). A scientist once proposed that there was a relationship between mass and distance in the form of some sort of attraction - he was correct. The idea that ideal gasses have a relationship between temperature, pressure and volume... Ya, that was correct. For every idea that those in the scientific community has revised, there's more than 1 idea that was right.

Hell, we could totally reject the idea of the light bulb... After all, many of different materials including strips of cotton and coal were used as a light emitter. For all the light bulb ideas that didn't work - it only took 1 to make it work. This is why we test, revise, retest.

But, since I got sloppy with the term theory - here's a very good explanation about the difference between theory and law and hypothesis...

The problem created by the false hierarchical nature inherent in this myth is that theories and laws are very different kinds of knowledge. Of course there is a relationship between laws and theories, but one simply does not become the other--no matter how much empirical evidence is amassed. Laws are generalizations, principles or patterns in nature and theories are the explanations of those generalizations (Rhodes & Schaible, 1989; Homer & Rubba, 1979; Campbell, 1953).

A perfect example... There's a universal law of gravitation. But, there's no theory of gravity that has taken traction in the community.

The greatest thing about scientific knowledge is that it is subject to revision given new evidence or discovery. Imagine if we lived in a society where our elders instructed pregnant women to smoke cigarettes because it is good for them AND that this knowledge is not refutable or capable of revision. I can think of tribal societies like this and am happy to not take part in them

[cfg83]

rh77 -

Originally Posted by rh77

OK, so what's this thread all about again???

True, if I insisted on better nutrition, then I wouldn't have so many throat infections -- despite the constant air travel...

So, what does this have to do with fuel economy???

Off topic this is what is it is, I suppose....

Let me be the a-hole and re-center the discussion on the original intent: FE.

RH77

You're totally wrong, as usual . It's about the religio-gastro-intestinal fortitude of trolls :

Mr. Little Guy Pics
Attachment 921
http://www.hometowntales.com/MainBlo...868D0F07F.html

What you don't understand is that we are slowly progressing to a point in this thread where we determine that trolls, under the right dietary conditions, emit a chemical concoction from their posterior in sufficient quantities so as to be able to enhance automobile combustion characteristics ten-fold. This chemical soup is sometimes referred to as "Brown's Gas" by laypeople.

But, no you have re-railed us into starting all over again. Thanks a lot!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CarloSW2

[cfg83]

trebuchet03 -

Originally Posted by trebuchet03

...

The greatest thing about scientific knowledge is that it is subject to revision given new evidence or discovery. Imagine if we lived in a society where our elders instructed pregnant women to smoke cigarettes because it is good for them AND that this knowledge is not refutable or capable of revision. I can think of tribal societies like this and am happy to not take part in them

I think that's the most important part. Science is flexible, it doesn't purport to have the end-all final answer. It only has the "best description" of what we have discovered up to this point, based on the scientific method. Would it be correct to say that science seeks the final answer, but does not claim to know it?

Carl Sagan Cosmos Segway : Johannes Kepler was extremely religious. He *wanted* the planets to circle the sun in perfect circles, because that was his expectation of what God would create. However, the science/math/astronomy just didn't work out. In the end, he came up with elliptical orbits and the three laws of planetary motion :

Johannes Kepler: His Life, His Laws and Times
http://kepler.nasa.gov/johannes/

Kepler was forced to leave his teaching post at Graz due to the counter Reformation because he was Lutheran and moved to Prague to work with the renowned Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe. He inherited Tycho's post as Imperial Mathematician when Tycho died in 1601. Using the precise data that Tycho had collected, Kepler discovered that the orbit of Mars was an ellipse. In 1609 he published Astronomia Nova, delineating his discoveries, which are now called Kepler's first two laws of planetary motion. And what is just as important about this work, "it is the first published account wherein a scientist documents how he has coped with the multitude of imperfect data to forge a theory of surpassing accuracy" (O. Gingerich in forward to Johannes Kepler New Astronomy translated by W. Donahue, Cambridge Univ Press, 1992), a fundamental law of nature. Today we call this the scientific method.

Here's a site that has oodles of stuff on Keppy :

http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/


However, I think that when religious institutions interact with science, they often find a need to "fit" the science into their pre-existing doctrine. When it doesn't fit, they need to create things like Intelligent-Design (aka the new Creationism) to get around the problem. From my POV, this shows a weakness in the institution. If a religious institution is secure in it's stated belief system, it shouldn't *need* to bend science to it's will.

CarloSW2

[Telco]

Originally Posted by trebuchet03

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is for this same reason science can not discredit the potential of divine being(s).


Oceanographers speculated life existed on the ocean floor beyond where light could reach - they were right. Scientists once thought there was a correlation between black body temperature and emissivity - they were right (Stefan-Boltzmann law). A French physicist once theorized that a heat engine's work was related to the caloric drop from a hot to cold body - he was right and is accredited with being the father of thermodynamics and was right (Carnot). A scientist once proposed that there was a relationship between mass and distance in the form of some sort of attraction - he was correct. The idea that ideal gasses have a relationship between temperature, pressure and volume... Ya, that was correct. For every idea that those in the scientific community has revised, there's more than 1 idea that was right.

Hell, we could totally reject the idea of the light bulb... After all, many of different materials including strips of cotton and coal were used as a light emitter. For all the light bulb ideas that didn't work - it only took 1 to make it work. This is why we test, revise, retest.

But, since I got sloppy with the term theory - here's a very good explanation about the difference between theory and law and hypothesis...



A perfect example... There's a universal law of gravitation. But, there's no theory of gravity that has taken traction in the community.

The greatest thing about scientific knowledge is that it is subject to revision given new evidence or discovery. Imagine if we lived in a society where our elders instructed pregnant women to smoke cigarettes because it is good for them AND that this knowledge is not refutable or capable of revision. I can think of tribal societies like this and am happy to not take part in them

Yep, in short it doesn't matter how many letters a man has after his name, or what he does for a living. Just because he's a scientist doesn't mean he's alway right nor does it mean he's always speaking with altruistic motives.

This is my big problem with global warming, there are too many holes in the theory and those advancing it have way too much wrapped up in it to be objective. This is different from pollution, which IS provable over and over, all you have to do is visit the local industrial park to see pollution in action. Global warming is too much "trends indicate," "we think," and moose farts to hold much water with me. So, I choose to try and reduce pollution in all its forms if I can, regardless of the effect on "global warming." I don't pay much attention to the GW fanatics, at least until they start proving their opinions with actual facts and not opinions.

First requirement to prove man's effect on GW, is identifying and understanding all the forces that affect the weather. Second requirement, identifying and understanding cyclic weather patterns that can last some 10,000 years or more. Until you do, you can't attempt to say whether man is causing it, or if it is a natural condition of the planet that would have taken place even if man never existed. Funny thing is, deep core samples from the Arctic ice have shown tropical plants under the ice, so the scientists have shown that it may be natural for the ice caps to melt periodically. Does this mean that man caused global warming by cooking mastodons over an open fire? Or is it natural for the ice caps to melt off for a period of time every 10,000 years or so? And how fast has it happened in the past?

And, this whole thread began as a discussion of global warming, true or false, not FE.

[skewbe]

Originally Posted by Telco

First requirement to prove man's effect on GW (rest of opinion skipped)

These are arbitrary requirements set by you and would secure the status quo for the foreseeable future. How do you know you are objective enough?

[Telco]

Originally Posted by skewbe

These are arbitrary requirements set by you and would secure the status quo for the foreseeable future. How do you know you are objective enough?

How are they arbitrary? Unless you know what you are looking at, you can't determine what effect a change might cause. We can't even predict the weather for a week with any real, consistent accuracy.

On the other hand, if we go with GW as a fact, there are all sorts of changes to be made, new laws that will require equipment to be replaced, lots and lots of money to be made, ect. There's government research grants, the new carbon market where you can buy and sell carbon like it was a real commodity, ect. There's real money to be made from no actual product. There won't be any carbon warehouses anywhere, nor any shipping needed to transport it. It'll be a true phantom commodity, for there is no physical product. There isn't even an intellectual product here, just an assumption.

I have no vested interest in the status quo, nor do I have any vested interest in a new carbon credit society. What is your vested interest, since you act like my saying GW isn't proven is taking real money out of your pocket?

[bowtieguy]

Originally Posted by rh77

OK, so what's this thread all about again???

True, if I insisted on better nutrition, then I wouldn't have so many throat infections -- despite the constant air travel...

So, what does this have to do with fuel economy???

Off topic this is what is it is, I suppose....

Let me be the a-hole and re-center the discussion on the original intent: FE.

RH77

hey commish! thought this was general discussion?, talk about whatever you want,right? besides, if someone is open to the idea of SAVING money via natural medicine, is that really a completely foreign subject? my family has saved countless money and grief thru chiro care. drugs and surgery are often destructive and money driven. if you're still not convinced, let me know, and no more will be said about it. thank you.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by Telco

How are they arbitrary? Unless you know what you are looking at, you can't determine what effect a change might cause. We can't even predict the weather for a week with any real, consistent accuracy.

Sure we can, it just takes longer than a week due to computing and data constraints. I've heard it's ~50% accurate at 5 days and 90% accurate at 24 hours, with more rnage for the time of onset than the accuracy of what it predicts.

[bowtieguy]

Hey Telco, i personally attribute GW to all the opening week injuries in NFL. you know CO2 depletes oxygen in the players,starving the muscles resulting in increase chance of serious injury.

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by omgwtfbyobbq

Sure we can, it just takes longer than a week due to computing and data constraints. I've heard it's ~50% accurate at 5 days and 90% accurate at 24 hours, with more range for the time of onset than the accuracy of what it predicts.

That's for local weather prediction... A weather model 10 years out isn't particularly helpful -- it's the cumulative energy balance model. We know the emissivity of the sun (we can take several scenarios), we know how much radiation leaves earth, and we know how much is absorbed. There's your basic model. Earth isn't a closed Energy system -- so it takes time (well, at least quite a bit of computing power) to do many iterations of many scenarios and then compare

GW doesn't say everywhere will get 2.5F warmer -- it's the average. Some places will be much hotter, as observed - and other places cooler, as observed. Local weather means nothing on the global scale

However - a long term weather model exists.... And, it predicted that South Atlantic hurricane something like 5 years before it happened...The guys running the model thought there was a problem with it - as there has never been a hurricane in the S. Atlantic ocean before. That same model predicted lot more offshore rain in Brazil which meant less water to fuel the Amazon river (again, this was taken to be a model error)... I think 2005 or 2006, the Amazon actually dried up in places it never had before...

Sure, the model doesn't predict everything -but it gets better and better every year. I would be much happier if it got everything wrong :/