Paths To Knowledge (dot Science)

What is actually real in Objective Reality? How do you know? Now, prove it's real!

You either believe it’s the end of the world unless we do something about it right now, or you’re a denier.

Posted by pwl on February 27, 2009

“A new report from Japan’s Energy Commission reveals that Japanese scientists are rejecting U.N. and Western-backed theories of climate change.

Three out of five researchers do not agree with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s hypothesis that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are primarily responsible for warming patterns, the UK’s Register reports.

One scientist likened computer climate modeling to ancient astrology, while others criticized the U.S. for lacking ground temperature data to support its claims. Several contributor said the mid-20th century warming trend has ended.


“We should be cautious,” he said. “IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis.

Akasofu said the alleged post-2000 warming trend is hypothetical.

Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth,” he wrote. “The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken.” ” – WND

The anti-science cult of “you are a denier” is prevalent now, and what’s the most shocking is that many otherwise rational and critical thinking people including actual scientists of all people are completely belief stricken rather than engaged in the scientific method. It really shows how much we need to improve science education including that of supposed scientists and science oriented people!

Associate Professor PZ Myers and his group of quick to shout “denier” cry babies over at pharyngula are a prime example of a science cult with a seriously bad attitude, and that’s not “bad” as in cool, that’s bad as in caustic, as in vile, as in demeaning to people they interact with, that’s bad as in unethical and shameful.

It’s clear that crying “denier” to anyone asking questions of a proposed or accepted hypothesis or theory is an ad hominem personal attack that reveals more about the person crying “denier” than it does about the person asking the questions. If you want to be anti-scientific cry forth “denier” as loud as your lungs permit. Associate Professor PZ Myers and his group of denier shouters proudly proclaim to the world that they are anti-scientific and against science education. Good for them to show their true colors as non-rational believers who attack those they consider “ignorant” of their conclusions about what “settled science” is. Science is never settled, ask all those attempting to mess with Einstein’s works (and those that have succeeded)!

Crying Denier usually stops rational conversations dead with the crier feeling smug and satisfied that they’ve identified someone who doesn’t agree with their views. Criers of denier think “that person is a denier so doesn’t belong to our group so mug them with impunity and gain social acceptance for their attack.”

Scientific method refers to techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

Elevate your dialog. Remove the personal attacks.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: