General Science Discussion Thread!

Baby Luigi said:
I dunno, I think naming it "Climate change" is less biased than "global warming".

Besides, haven't we gotten cleaner and greener than ever?
Click to expand...
I think we had a lot more emissions over the years. And it's not just CO2. People need to consider nitrous oxide and other more "obscure" emissions as well.

Also, bringing up Galilieo in a scientific consensus argument is based on a fallacy.
 
Ooo, yes it is.

It's global-warming potential isn't measured, though, because the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is largely dependent on temperature, so you can't really control its amount.
 
Castiel said:
another question, o great sciencey homies


is there any proof angels and demons exist

sincerely yours

Spiny M. Aster
Click to expand...
considering that angels or demons would be celestial beings from an entire other plane of existence, i don't really think that you could find proof of their existence if they didn't want you to find it
Hypochondriac Mario said:
Also, bringing up Galilieo in a scientific consensus argument is based on a fallacy.
Click to expand...
askjdnfalsjkdfasdf

i had an entire article on scientists being shunned that i posted already. did you even read it?
 
Thrawn said:
i had an entire article on scientists being shunned that i posted already. did you even read it?
Click to expand...
I know.

But I have some quotes.

Carl Sagan said:
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Click to expand...

Just because they went against the consensus doesn't mean they're correct. There were numerous attempts to go against the scientific consensus in other aspects and they failed as well.
 
I love political sciences. More specifically, about mass hysteria. Who knows about that case in France with almost all male students afflicted with a mysterious "sickness"??? They tried decontamination, but no microbes could be found...
 
Hypochondriac Mario said:
Just because they went against the consensus doesn't mean they're correct. There were numerous attempts to go against the scientific consensus in other aspects and they failed as well.
Click to expand...
my point wasn't that anti-consensus ideas are always correct, my point was that scientists often scoff at new ideas that could turn out to be correct
 
Yes, they ignore all the little bits, like crumbs dropped under a table. But soon, the crummbs accumulate, and turn into a contradiction. So the have to drop their old ideas, and look at new stuff.
 
Thrawn said:
Hypochondriac Mario said:
Just because they went against the consensus doesn't mean they're correct. There were numerous attempts to go against the scientific consensus in other aspects and they failed as well.
Click to expand...
my point wasn't that anti-consensus ideas are always correct, my point was that scientists often scoff at new ideas that could turn out to be correct
Click to expand...
New ideas go through a peer-review process.

If no published ideas that contradict a consensus stands up to the peer-review process, then there is a problem with the contrarians' beliefs.
 
i'm not sure you understand here. if the peers are part of the consensus, and they feel like the consensus is being challenged, then said contrarian report would never make it past peer-review.

that doesn't necessarily mean it's incorrect.
 
What's the point of saying this, though? Are you trying to insinuate that the peer-review process means nothing? Are you trying to imply that declining a challenging idea is some sort of conspiracy to make sure the 'facts' aren't brought to light? Are you just trying to tell us that sometimes maybe there's a small exception to things? If it is indeed that you're just trying to say that sometimes an idea that's actually right is laughed off at first, then of course that's a possibility that has happened before but what's the point of bringing it up?
 
The peer-review process isn't dependent on pressure to conform to the consensus. Do you know how the peer-review process goes?

And, besides, if there was a publication that challenges the consensus, the peer-review process makes sure if the publication has strong, solid evidence and the publication will be scrutinized by other scientists. Many points the opposition has suggested have been either debunked or have not enough definite evidence, so they do not pass through the peer-review process. Science itself relies on healthy skepticism.

Besides, climate change deniers have also a history of distorting the data, cherry picking, misrepresenting the sample, taking quotes out of context, and relying on sources sponsored by oil corporations which undermines their credibility.
 
Morty said:
If it is indeed that you're just trying to say that sometimes an idea that's actually right is laughed off at first, then of course that's a possibility that has happened before but what's the point of bringing it up?
Click to expand...
because LGM apparently doesn't believe that it's a possibility

i'm trying to explain that
 
Thrawn said:
Morty said:
If it is indeed that you're just trying to say that sometimes an idea that's actually right is laughed off at first, then of course that's a possibility that has happened before but what's the point of bringing it up?
Click to expand...
because LGM apparently doesn't believe that it's a possibility

i'm trying to explain that
Click to expand...
I believe it's a miniscule possibility (just as how I won't worry that my house will undergo collapse even during a strong earthquake, but I worry that heavy flying objects will get me). I also believe what the majority of the experts say, which they have concluded from a lengthy peer-review process that has also debunked the majority of contrarians' beliefs. What the experts say is also mostly consistent with their observations (emissions, ice levels, annual global temperature averages, average sea levels, and more). They sound way more convincing to me than the assertion of the the contrary that doesn't back up claims while continually attacks the affirmative argument.
 
well as long as you admit that it's possible

i also try not to say that what a majority of people believe is necessarily true. it's incredibly likely, yes, but new discoveries are always happening that disprove established beliefs. to believe that we are close to understanding everything in the universe and being right on everything is quite frankly arrogant

but yeah. as long as you're willing to admit it's possible for the majority to be wrong, then i guess we're cool here
Doctor Walter Bishop said:
if you wanted an evolution vs creationism thread couldn't you just title it that?
Click to expand...
because i was hoping we could eventually talk about more interesting topics

like turning gravitational energy into electromagnetic energy
 
Castiel said:
ohhh yeah i see what you mean

thanks for the clarification there

but another question. lets say immortality someone becomes a thing. will that mean we cease to age and could live forever or could we still die from fatal things like stabs or explosions and bullets?
Click to expand...
what kind of immortality
Highlander style or one of the many zombie types?
 
Thrawn said:
because i was hoping we could eventually talk about more interesting topics

like turning gravitational energy into electromagnetic energy
Click to expand...
Well, there is some talk about using lasers to generate energy, like HiPER (High Power laser Energy Research facility).
 
So we did the whole pond water under a microscope thing.

Elementary stuff, but still. It kinda puts size to a sick perspective. Microbial life is seriously beautiful.
 
Doctor Walter Bishop said:
So we did the whole pond water under a microscope thing.

Elementary stuff, but still. It kinda puts size to a sick perspective. Microbial life is seriously beautiful.
Click to expand...
Have you seen water bears? Those are actually animals, not bacteria or protists.
 
Water bears are adorable I swear to god

i could give less shits about saving pandas when there are water bears dying every second
 
Doctor Walter Bishop said:
Water bears are adorable I swear to god

i could give less shits about saving pandas when there are water bears dying every second
Click to expand...

personally i probably wouldnt save either.

Mainly because im very scared of bears, damn bear zoo.
 
I believe creation because for one reason the vast majority of people believe ghosts exist. So if there are spirits, logically that means there is a creator spirit. I have heard the most prominent atheist on YouTube say that he knows from personal experience ghosts are real, but he still thinks God is bullsh!t. And to this I say WTF. I am really puzzled by such a contradiction.

As for ghosts existing, it cannot be proven 100% to all in the world the same way God cannot be. Spirits cannot be recorded on cameras. But sometimes the human eye can see them. Yes, sometimes people can be hoaxed, and sometimes people can mistake something natural for supernatural. But millions upon millions upon millions upon millions of people throughout world history who have claimed to see them do not fall only into those two categories. At least, not logically.
 
Is there proof angels and demons exist? Yes. People have been possessed not only the the Bible book, but in real life. I could link to youtube audio of a famous possessed girl but it is too disturbing. Yes you could say some people who thought they were possessed were either disturbed or severely mentally ill. But some victims of real possession have performed supernatural feats such as superhuman strength and causing objects to levitate. No that's not just in movies I think they base the movies off what happens in real life events. Maybe the movies exaggerated the events, or maybe the real events were even more disturbing. We really don't know. You could say that someone who is truly suffering from horrible psychosis is causing an object to levitate by tapping into undiscovered parts of the brain, but I think that the possession is more likely. All religions and cultures have forms of exorcism, from Catholics to protestants to the Jews to Islam to pagans. So the concept of evil spirits and or demons attacking and taking over people is not only a Christian thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back