|
|
|
|
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/13/2009 9:30:37 PM | What is science then? It should come as a real shock to me, if I'm that ignorant. I'm sure the piles of books I've read written by scientists must have missed the mark somehow.
It's a system that strictly enforces knowledge and definition of limitations in theory and practice.
How do you "enforce knowledge"? And if those definitions of limitations are in place then why do so many supporters of "science and nothing else" bother commenting on those things which are beyond those limitations? Why do you pretend to know those things which are not yet known? | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/13/2009 9:44:26 PM |
I'm sure the piles of books I've read written by scientists must have missed the mark somehow.
I have no idea what you're read. Not everything written by scientists is science. You need to review what science is, not read books that circumscribe it. Start with the Scietnfic Method. That will set straight a lot of the nonsense you've been writing.
How do you "enforce knowledge"?
Read much? "knowledge and definition of..." means what to you? You can read all the books scientists have ever written but your comprehension skills are woeful. Maybe you should enroll in a grammar course before you start learning what science is.
And if those definitions of limitations are in place then why do so many supporters of "science and nothing else" bother commenting on those things which are beyond those limitations? Why do you pretend to know those things which are not yet known?
I have no idea what you're saying here. I can't help you without specifics. The specifics you have brought forth in this thread have been balderdash. You've been corrected many times but you keep spouting them. It mainly stems for your ignorance of what science is and what its practical application in medicine are. Ye,s I also am shocked at your level of ignorance, amplified with your uninformed attacks on a system that has done you no harm.
This forum really, really needs an ignore function. I usually impose my own for posters like you. You're back on it, by the way.  | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/14/2009 12:39:46 AM | How about burning practitioners at the stake? They got forced out through systematic force. It is a tragedy that this has happened, not something to be happy about. Now people have to piece together a new tradition from the rubble.
Huh ? Let me guess ; you read some story (probably true) in some New Age "medical" book about how some Wiccan was burned for using herbs or whatever. Never mind that it wasn't any roving band of modern , scientifically literate doctors doing it (first problem with your allusion) but that perhaps , "medicine" had nothing to do with it in the first place. They found all kinds of reasons to burn people at the stake in the bad old days and using the wrong root on an ailing patient wasn't generally one of the reasons listed.
Either way , no , you're still wrong. The reason people abandoned "traditional" medicine in the West was because it seldom worked and even when it did , modern , scientific medicine offered treatments a thousand times better. Or are you going to tell me that you'd prefer chewing on tree bark all day instead of just taking a couple of aspirin ?
If it works in the first place , science makes it work better.
Except that most of the people who are clamouring to it are the ones who already know and understand science
Clearly that's not the case.
And the fact is scientific studies have shown the efficacy of chinese medicine for various conditions. Each system works better at different things.
Oh... ? Some of it works , yes. The question is what works better. Do you also believe that dried , crushed deer penis will make a man into a sexual steed ? Chinese traditional "medicine" believes this.
What is illogical is assuming science has answers for everything when it doesn't. That is a fact.
Who's making that assumption ? That would be you assuming I'm making assuptions. Not that it matters anyway because the key issue here is that you seem to believe that Western medicine has simply overlooked Chinese traditional medicine. Do you honestly think that anybody cares where they get cures and treatments from ? Why would any scientist be told of a viable cure for some ailment and then completely ignore it because of who tells him about it ? S/He doesn't care where it comes from ...if it works it will be explored.
Educate yourself on how the world works, and now with how you think it should work according to science and you'll discover how big your blinders are.
Oh please.  | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/14/2009 3:29:30 AM | Diva,
yes, it's safe.
any opinion is welcome. that is how we learn. that is how we debate. that is how we grow.
By the expression, and exchange of words, we partake of the buffet of knowledge. and of course a spirited debate is better than a one sided dictate.
 
Dale | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/14/2009 6:35:23 AM | Science is the pursuit of explanation about our universe. To test our theories, (personally biased concepts) we often use a protocol referred to as the scientific method. There appears to be a growing emphasis toward a more political approach that is more of a vote of so called peers. Unfortunately, the selection process of peers is not so well defined and usually consists of those with like backgrounds to the originator and thus similar biases. It would be like polling tobacco company employees to see if smoking is safe as anyone else is not qualified to discuss tobacco.
The scientific method has a more subtle flaw in that the "proving" experiment and observation protocols are usually defined by those with a bias to prove their point. This process assumes the system upon which hypothesis applies can be reduced to some simple experiment. One I have seen often concerns a global warming "tipping point". Here a beaker of ice water is heated with a specific amount of energy and its rate of temperature increase is observed. Once the ice has melted, the rate of temperature rise increases. After that basic physics experiment, the conclusion makes a giant leap of assumptions that this models the climate. As an engineer, I have designed a variety of systems based on similar functions within semiconductors. They make wonderful oscillators. The computer you are using now has several of them. The systems are cyclic because of the very non-linear characteristic similar to the experiment. The experiment only "proved" a physical characteristic of water's phase change from solid to liquid. Unfortunately, the casual observer sees this "proof" and assumes the extrapolations in the conclusion are also proven. The least applicable extrapolation in this frequent global warming "proof" is to link this experiment to CO2 levels. The most disturbing place this experiment is demonstrated is in school science classes. This would not be so disturbing if it were not for the political agenda being sold with it.
As an engineer, I count on scientists to provide the physics available. From that, I apply an array of physics principals and employ math from the mathematicians to create system models and working systems. If the scientist has provided faulty theories, my systems won’t work as I intend them to. If I fail to take into account all the physics, my system will fail and I will get the blame. It the physics is wrong, my system will fail and I will still get the blame. This is the most challenging part and the part where the scientist gets it wrong most often. A scientist only has to get published to make a living. The more embraceable or fearful his conclusion, the more he is likely to get published and funded. Unfortunately, that does not make for good physics or sound political policy. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/14/2009 9:00:22 AM | Ahoy,
Wwwahhoooo,   
Dang! you are as anti pc as I've seen around here ;
You get back to the basic and totally prove honesty is the biggest element that takes a beating in this publish or perish PC world 
THANK YOU for having chutzpah and being direct.
Dale | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/14/2009 10:20:19 AM | Ahotheredave - thank you thank you for honesty on how the scientific method actually gets used, as opposed to how it's supposed to be used. A lof of scientists on here find it hard to admit the possibility there could be any flaws in the process.
Huh ? Let me guess ; you read some story (probably true) in some New Age "medical" book about how some Wiccan was burned for using herbs or whatever.
Hahaha. I've read plenty about the middle ages. Witch hunts didn't involve one person, and yes of course many other people who burnt as well, but the fact is it was still a 2 punch process with religion leading the way and science basically coming in to fill the void in the aftermath. Many of the practitioners of traditional medicine were still murdered, and no I know it wasn't scientists that actually did it.
Either way , no , you're still wrong. The reason people abandoned "traditional" medicine in the West was because it seldom worked and even when it did , modern , scientific medicine offered treatments a thousand times better. Or are you going to tell me that you'd prefer chewing on tree bark all day instead of just taking a couple of aspirin ?
Chew on tree bark? As far as I know most medicines were served as tea, and yes I will always prefer the real thing than the derivative. And you just admitted that modern medicine just used traditional medicine directly in order to make one of the most common pain relief medication. But why not just scoff at the whole thing? The human body did not evolve to ingest simple chemical compounds in the way they are prescribed now, it is always preferable to eat more of the organism when possible. The reason these kinds of drugs are used is only because of regulation not because of effectiveness. You are clueless about how cultural change happens, if you think it's all because everyone just starts using what's better than before. A lot of positive elements of traditional culture have also been lost because of pressures and politics and fads that seemed good at the time. There is almost never just ONE reason for these kinds of changes.
Some of it works , yes. The question is what works better. Do you also believe that dried , crushed deer penis will make a man into a sexual steed ? Chinese traditional "medicine" believes this.
You again prove you know nothing about Chinese medicine. Where did you learn that? From a book? As is stated from others more educated than yourself in previous posts, Chinese medicines excels in areas where western medicine is weak - chronic conditions, hormonal conditions, pain relief, digestive problems. And then of course there is overlap with some conditions - with Chinese medicine ahead of the game in the fact that there are rarely side effects - something which almost always comes along with any pharmaceutical. In cases of emergency, surgeries, examining the body with technological instruments, acute conditions - here western medicine excels. They are not 2 parallel systems, they are very different systems with different focuses. Western medicine simply does not focus on health maintenance, and that is why alternative medicines are so popular, because they fill this very important niche.
Do you honestly think that anybody cares where they get cures and treatments from ? Why would any scientist be told of a viable cure for some ailment and then completely ignore it because of who tells him about it ? S/He doesn't care where it comes from ...if it works it will be explored.
Are you really that naive? Do you really think doctors have the time to research outside of their own academic profession to find out whether other medicines exist? Since the whole diagnostic system of chinese medicine is totally different, they would have to study it first to even comprehend. It is not as simple as "use this herb for this condition" that even relates to western medicine.
I've been to TCM practitioners since I was about 15, 2 Chinese and 2 English Canadians, and have found them to be very beneficial. Even the whole atmosphere of going to see them is more positive and caring than going to a western doctor. Also, they are way cheaper, and I've never had any negative side effect from any treatment, something I can't say for western medicine. I also lived with a woman who was studying this form of medicine and got to dabble in some of the books to see what was behind it.
There are important ways that it differs from western medicine that makes up for a lot of those big gaps that patients fall through and are harmed. For one thing there is no trial and error in prescribing like with western drugs. Instead of this constant over prescribing or mis prescribing or waiting to see if a bad reaction occurs in a patient, since the patient's constitution and state at the moment of diagnosis is most important in TCM, this kind of misuse of drugs rarely happens.
If you're going to criticize something, get your head out of your biased literature and actually see what's going on in the way it's being practiced today, and it's alive and well in Canada, for very good reasons. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/14/2009 1:08:07 PM | Zed,
both agree and disagree with you.
I just see it as a motto type thing;
it is not only discretion, but discernment which is the better parts of valor.
Otherwise it's "just the pot calling the kettle black" thing going on and it leads to an " oh yeah.... Yeah... And it just goes down hill from there.
With more respect,
Dale | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/14/2009 6:10:56 PM |
There appears to be a growing emphasis toward a more political approach that is more of a vote of so called peers.
Maybe. I haven't seen this in action, really. If you're refering to anthropogenic global waring, anti-GMO / irradiaton scares and such, those are not really science. They're PR that people who want to believe consider science.
After that basic physics experiment, the conclusion makes a giant leap of assumptions that this models the climate.
There is an amazing lack of comprehension in the phenomenon of emergence or even various levels of complexity at present. I fully agree with you on global warming alarmism. There's one fellow on a different forum that I asked how the current scaremongering was any different than the Malthusian Food Scare perpetrated on the public by the Club of Rome in the 1970's. (We woudl run out of food in the 90's and be dead by now.) That was based on good math but very poor assumptions. Norman Borlaug (RIP) did them in single-handedly. The response I got was that we know everything we need to know about our atmosphere and oceans. You could have knocked me over with a feather.
This would not be so disturbing if it were not for the political agenda being sold with it.
Exactly but there is good science being done. It's equivocal on the effect of all the forcings on climate, though. The danger is that someone is going to cherry-pick facts to justify some catastrophic change. The demagogues are already out in force over this one and a few other scares. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/14/2009 8:39:32 PM |
It's equivocal on the effect of all the forcings on climate, though.
If anything, the demonstrated effect argues for a natural cycle, not some runaway reaction to man's minor disturbances.
Ocean currents are driven in part by temperature differentials, not simple heat. There is simply not enough direct sunlight to melt the polar ice even if the CO2 concept were reasonable. The bulk of the sunlight energy is well above the narrow band IR absorption of CO2 and is reflected back to space by the white ice. The reality is that sea ice is melting due to heat carried by ocean currents driven in part by the heat sink of the melting ice itself. Its a warming cycle that ends when the heat sink runs out, basically when the ice is gone. The currents soon stop and a general freeze begins. This is an oscillation with a fundamental ice age cycle but its not a simple sinusoid. It is asymptotic as shown in the popular Hansen plot. That implies there are distortions that would be seen as short term cycles. A few degrees here and there over periods of decades and centuries instead of the millennia of ice ages. At the same time, we have other cycles such as solar activity. Even with all this, we have predictions claiming accuracy of better than .25% using modified weather prediction programs that count on self-correcting algorithms from feedback of actual measured results. These "learning" algorithms are being asked to work in a vacuum with no feedback. Surprise, they make wild predictions. Sensational sells so they run with them. Engineers spend a lot of time making feedback control systems stable and one sure way to instability is to remove the feedback.
In short, the extrapolation of a simple high school experiment to man made CO2 global warming is pseudoscience at it best. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/15/2009 12:40:20 AM |
Chew on tree bark? As far as I know most medicines were served as tea, and yes I will always prefer the real thing than the derivative. And you just admitted that modern medicine just used traditional medicine directly in order to make one of the most common pain relief medication. But why not just scoff at the whole thing? The human body did not evolve to ingest simple chemical compounds in the way they are prescribed now, it is always preferable to eat more of the organism when possible. The reason these kinds of drugs are used is only because of regulation not because of effectiveness. You are clueless about how cultural change happens, if you think it's all because everyone just starts using what's better than before. A lot of positive elements of traditional culture have also been lost because of pressures and politics and fads that seemed good at the time. There is almost never just ONE reason for these kinds of changes
And you claim to have a clue about what you're talking about ?
The human body did not "evolve" for either scientific or traditional "medicine". Evolution has nothing to do with it but way to build a straw-man. You'd rather have "the real thing" complete with its impurities that AREN'T good for you over what we know is the active , effective ingredient. Now THAT'S evolution in action right there.
You seriously think culture has anything to do with this too...that's so senseless it's laughable. Tell you what though : If you get cancer and refuse chemo , by all means , move to China and try out their effective "traditional medicines" medicine. Remember , it only works if you believe.
You again prove you know nothing about Chinese medicine. Where did you learn that? From a book? As is stated from others more educated than yourself in previous posts, Chinese medicines excels in areas where western medicine is weak - chronic conditions, hormonal conditions, pain relief, digestive problems. And then of course there is overlap with some conditions - with Chinese medicine ahead of the game in the fact that there are rarely side effects - something which almost always comes along with any pharmaceutical. In cases of emergency, surgeries, examining the body with technological instruments, acute conditions - here western medicine excels. They are not 2 parallel systems, they are very different systems with different focuses. Western medicine simply does not focus on health maintenance, and that is why alternative medicines are so popular, because they fill this very important niche.
Geez...all you had to do was look it up.
http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=331&catid=13&subcatid=83
As for the rest of your paragraph....sure , whatever you say. I have no idea what you're talking about and I expect that if you were forced to explain your own words you'd have a tough time doing it. Frankly , I doubt you'd be able to provide any distinguishible definition between medicine and "health maintenance" as it relates to the differences between TCM and modern , scientific medicine.
Are you really that naive? Do you really think doctors have the time to research outside of their own academic profession to find out whether other medicines exist? Since the whole diagnostic system of chinese medicine is totally different, they would have to study it first to even comprehend. It is not as simple as "use this herb for this condition" that even relates to western medicine.
I've been to TCM practitioners since I was about 15, 2 Chinese and 2 English Canadians, and have found them to be very beneficial. Even the whole atmosphere of going to see them is more positive and caring than going to a western doctor. Also, they are way cheaper, and I've never had any negative side effect from any treatment, something I can't say for western medicine. I also lived with a woman who was studying this form of medicine and got to dabble in some of the books to see what was behind it.
There are important ways that it differs from western medicine that makes up for a lot of those big gaps that patients fall through and are harmed. For one thing there is no trial and error in prescribing like with western drugs. Instead of this constant over prescribing or mis prescribing or waiting to see if a bad reaction occurs in a patient, since the patient's constitution and state at the moment of diagnosis is most important in TCM, this kind of misuse of drugs rarely happens.
If you're going to criticize something, get your head out of your biased literature and actually see what's going on in the way it's being practiced today, and it's alive and well in Canada, for very good reasons.
Good grief ...do you meditate with a pyramid on your head and a "healing crystal" around your neck too ? There's pretty much no pseudoscientific idea that doesn't appeal to you more than real , tested , falsifiable science is there ?
And you call me naive. Yowsers. | |
|
| |
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/15/2009 7:34:18 AM | Well, ahoytheredave, your personal bias against anthropogenic global warming is well known. However:
The scientific method has a more subtle flaw in that the "proving" experiment and observation protocols are usually defined by those with a bias to prove their point. This process assumes the system upon which hypothesis applies can be reduced to some simple experiment.
The check and balance comes from the fact that the conclusion a) has to be published in a peer reviewed publication and b) can be tested and either falsified or verified by those with no direct stake in the outcome of the experiment.
If the scientist has provided faulty theories, my systems won’t work as I intend them to. If I fail to take into account all the physics, my system will fail and I will get the blame. It the physics is wrong, my system will fail and I will still get the blame. This is the most challenging part and the part where the scientist gets it wrong most often. A scientist only has to get published to make a living. The more embraceable or fearful his conclusion, the more he is likely to get published and funded. Unfortunately, that does not make for good physics or sound political policy.
So you're trying to incorporate unverified science and you shouldn't get the blame if it goes wrong? So, let me get this straight. If you're told to put in a cold fusion generator to power a building, and you try and do it, who's really to blame there?
Is there a political aspect to science? Well, duh! But unless you can think up a better system, the process of science is the best one we have to get at "the truth." Just because scientists come up with conclusions you don't like regarding the climate, that's not a failing of the system. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/15/2009 12:11:32 PM | I think that desertrhino's problem is a perfect example where eastern medicine would hav killed him. You state that he wouldn't have died in the UK, but you did forget a few things.
You wrote:
"Not in the UK. Here, if people have a problem, then they'll go and see their GP. Usually, their GP will prescribe them something, and say "if it doesn't heal by the end of the medication, then come back"."
Pretty much the same where desertrhino lives.
This is where the two systems go different directions:
"If it's still a problem, then they'll often be referred to a specialist consultant, which can take a day, or a week, or you can wait months."
Instead of waiting for weeks or months, if he was in an emergency room, he WOULD have been seen by someone who was more versed in his problem than the GP. I have a mother who just was through a similar type of situation as desertrhino, and had she been made to wait weeks for specialists, or tests, she would be dead today. No amount of herbal teas, or accupuncture, or voodoo would have helped her situation, as it would not have helped desertrhino.
Then you say:
"Then the consultant will have tests done on you, and then discuss the results. Sometimes, they say that something can be done. Often, if you're still in pain, they'll say that nothing can be done, or everything that can be done, is already being done. THAT's usually the point at which people turn to Chinese medicine. But you've got several thousands of people in that situation, people with everything from incurable sciatica, to crippling arthritis, to IBS, or to "internal injuries", all of which have tried to get treatment from Western medicine, but simply can't get. Everything has its limits, even Western medicine."
Very true, but it is those VERY limits that many practioners and followers of eastern medicine seem to think don't exist. At least, with western medicine, once you get to the end of its technology, you are assured that you have done all you can. There are some cases where different treatments other than western medicine can help, but that is very much in the minority. Had my mother, and desertrhino followed eastern medicine, to where it could no longer help, and then not resorted to western medcine, they would be both dead. That is, if they didn't wait too long to have western medicine take care of their problem.
Paul K | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/15/2009 9:05:21 PM |
has to be published in a peer reviewed publication
I addressed this point earlier. Who chooses the peers? Would it likely be people of similar backgrounds and thus similar points of view? On Ebay, sellers and buyers usually give each other high marks as neither want low marks from the other. How is the peer review process scenario any different?
can be tested and either falsified or verified by those with no direct stake in the outcome of the experiment.
Climate predictions cannot be tested or verified as they have not happened yet and even if events appear to track some prediction, one cannot prove a link to proposed forcing functions in such a complex system with no control. In lessor topics, verification or invalidation may not be forthcoming simply due to the cost of the effort relative to the value such effort would produce.
So you're trying to incorporate unverified science and you shouldn't get the blame if it goes wrong?
The process goes kind of like this: A scientist publishes a paper with say a cold fusion claim that "proves" some massive government program can eliminate CO2 and thus stop global warming. This serves the politician's purposes and funding for further research by the scientist follows. With the aid of the politician's machine, any scientist that dares publish any rebuttal is discredited and who would fund such an effort to prove a negative anyway? Contracts are funded and engineers are hired to produce the solution but since the physics is bad, it won't work. The scientists and politicians who fund them with tax payer money, blame the engineers.
It's not a question of the existence of politics in science but a matter of degree and ethics. Its also not a matter of "like" conclusions of the CO2 global warming crowd but the validity of the science in the face of massive political involvement and financial motive. The fact that you characterize my conclusions as emotional: "you don't like" is a subtle personal attack on my objectivity diverting attention away from the science. When such a " ends justify the means" rationalization dominates an issue, where is the science? I have argued all along, my concern is about the environmental damage resulting from such politically driven pseudoscience. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/15/2009 10:11:46 PM | Just addressing this question:
On Ebay, sellers and buyers usually give each other high marks as neither want low marks from the other. How is the peer review process scenario any different?
In scientific peer review, it would be a 'coup' to show how another publication is faulty. The Globe and Mail and the National Post are peers (both Canadian national newspapers). If the Globe published fact A and the National Post were able to refute it, the National Post would jump at the chance.
If someone publishes fact A in a scientific journal and someone else is able to utterly refute it, that someone else gets kudos for debunking 'fact A'.
If Democrats say fact A and Republicans can prove fact A is false, Republicans will jump on the chance to do so.
Unlike buyers and sellers on Ebay, peer review involves competition between the two parties involved regarding the veracity of the statements made. Scientific peer-reviewers don't need accolades from the authors they're reviewing, like Ebay buyers and sellers need high marks from each other.
Who chooses the peers?
You and I are both somewhat educated males on Plenty of Fish. When did you choose me as your peer? Friends are chosen, peers are not. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/16/2009 11:42:59 AM |
it would be a 'coup' to show how another publication is faulty.
Would it be a coup to show the process both use is faulty?
Unlike buyers and sellers on Ebay, peer review involves competition between the two parties involved regarding the veracity of the statements made.
Actually, Ebay as an example of free market buying and selling is all about competition. The buyer competes against other buyers and the seller competes against other sellers with money at stake. After purchase evaluations serve little purpose other than revenge or gratuity that may earn future benefit. I have practiced this myself and actually had vendors give me special deals through 5 minute auctions and even extra merchandise in my shipment. In turn, I complete my transaction as fast as possible to earn the seller's favor. That is how the free market works. The concepts being sold to fight "climate change" are far from free market.
Selling the need for grants and studies to funding bodies requires getting the interest of the funding body. Fears of climate change do just that and it is not in the interest of peers, wanting more money themselves, to discount the fear that is profiting all of them. If it was say one scientist verses another for some fixed amount of money or one publication against another for a fixed number of readers, then competition exists but when a significant portion of the entire domestic economy is at stake if the fear can be sold, then there is no reason to compete for anything more than the most sensational. Tearing each other down kills the golden goose of climate change fear. Because of the this motive as well as political power grabs, the pseudoscience of CO2 global warming is going strong.
When did you choose me as your peer?
I chose a like interest in this topic but since neither of us will be getting any grants or other compensation, our comments are just so much digital grafffitti.
Friends are chosen, peers are not
I would choose a number of famous people as friends but friendship is a two way street. Friends are earned, not chosen, and I simply don't earn enough for most of the rich and famous. Peers are a matter of choosing one's profession and thus choosing the peers that go aling with it. Please explain why you figure the opposite in both cases. | |
|
| |
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/19/2009 11:43:08 AM | Central,
Agreed.
Though mans' partiality to be self absorbed and correct is where ambiguity creeps in to anything. remember al gore, the " father " of the internet. talk about self rightious.
But I guess you get that with any person, even bush.
Dale | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/19/2009 9:42:20 PM | | If it isn't science , sort of like the Gospel truth Science , how does it masquerade soas to look like gospel Science . And you can't ignore me as I tend to know what I mean and mean what I know .What you might call pseudoscience may well be in the future 'real' science . | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/20/2009 12:53:03 AM | | It's pseudo-science because it can't be tested , it can't be proven , it can't be verified or falsified....when it CAN be THEN it'll be real science. In the meantime , without a means to 'prove' it in any way , why would anybody at all believe in it ? The answer to that is very simple : Those people simply aren't willing to ask enough questions nor are they careful to listen to the answers they get. | |
|
| |
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/21/2009 9:29:30 PM |
and us coming from chimps can't be proven, so that = pseudoscience, by human rules.
A false claim since chimps and humans came from common ancestry. The fact that chimps and humans share 98 per cent of genes in common is proof of our species close relationship. In fact, the entire fossil record is evidence.
aremeself, perhaps you should actually take a science course before you start condemning the process. Hint: don't take it from anyone who has the title "reverend" in front of their name but doesn't have a bachelors, masters or Ph.D in science as well. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/21/2009 9:54:41 PM | common ancestory is what does it for you?
aren't we all made up of the same chemical makeup?
is there only one answer for you?
get away from the white coat stuff.
peons can't figure it out?
we just clean houses and stuff?
prove me wrong, old boy! | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/21/2009 10:21:32 PM |
prove me wrong, old boy!
It's been done. We have a wealth of hominid fossils dating back to the estimated divergence from chimps. The physical differences in the bones coincide in timing and magnitude and timing with the chemical differences in the DNA. The measured rate of DNA change in humans is increasing and now easily exceeds the rate required to explain the differences between humans and chimps.
Nuclear genetic differences? Measured.
Mitochondrial DNA differences? Measured and used to approximate a last-common-ancestor date of 8 million years.
Rate of nuclear genetic change? Measured and found to meet or exceed the rate required to achieve the known differences in 8 million years.
Physical differences? Measured.
Fossils? Found, back to almost 8 million years. Physical differences consistent with expectations.
Cause of divergence? Fossil record shows a series of climate and habitat changes from forest to savanna...beginning about 8 million years ago. Hominid fossils come largely from paleo-savanna habitats.
The facts are all there, as is the logic and the cause-effect scenario. | |
|
|
| Page 20 of 22
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 |
|
Home
login 
