And reddit maintains their position, that "science" never address hard questions

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/25/a-...ore-103812

Quote:I gave it quite a lot of thought, and asked three questions of Michael Mann during his Ask Me Anything on Reddit:
1.Given the Oxburgh Panel’s criticism on your use of statistical methods and McShane and Wyner 2010 finding significant statistical lapses in Mann et al 2008, do you foresee consulting with statisticians before publishing future papers?
2.Do you regret the splicing of instrumental data with proxy data in your Nature study, something that Phil Jones referred to as “Mike’s Nature trick?”
3.Darrell Kaufman issued a correction after he discovered that your orientation of the Tiljander data set was upside down in Mann et al 2008. Do you regret reversing this orientation, and why have you not issued a similar correction?

Unfortunately, Michael Mann saw none of these questions.

And it’s not that that the questions showed up but were down-voted into oblivion by the users (seems to be a safe zone for alarmists). I half-expected that! What transpired instead was that the moderator blocked my comments from appearing entirely.

Reddit is a boring over moderated blog for people that think one way politically.

(12-18-2013 06:19 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  GoApps

This is the way that people who are not familiar with the nature of science are confused. The person who started this thread has been confused with this very subject many times over. Science never proves anything. It sets out to disprove. It eliminates possibilities. You will never find a scientific proof as you would in math. A theory is the gold standard. A theory has never been disproven.

Ten theories that were disproved:

1. The discovery of planet Vulcan
2. Spontaneous Generation
3. Expanding Earth
4. Phlogiston Theory
5. The Martian Canals
6. Luminiferous Aether
7. The Blank Slate Theory
8. Phrenology
9. Einstein's Static Universe*
10. Fleischmann and Pns's Cold Fusion**


* Still, like all cosmological ideas, the expanding universe is just a theory, and a small group of scientists today still subscribe to the old static model.

** In recent years, scientists have once again started to experiment with new ways of achieving a so-called “tabletop nuclear reaction,” with some even claiming to have achieved surprising success.

(12-18-2013 11:01 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 10:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Paul,

Outside of conservative circles there is no controversy. plain and simple. It's a well established never been disproven theory.


btw I do like the new signature..................

Mach, once a theory is proven it's no longer a theory, it then becomes a fact.

This post alone supports that you know nothing about even the most basic of scientific principles and the core of the scientific method.

Gravity is a theory. The heliocentric solar system is a theory. The earth being round is a scientific theory.

(12-18-2013 10:30 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Your all over the place Mach.

According to you, science is suppose to try to disprove but... it's settled science.

Mach didn't just get a B.S. - he's full of it also. He proudly shows the world that he doesn't know what he's talking about. He also doesn't know when the actual science guy has whipped his butt again. No, Mach claims victory and the rest of us just laugh. He can't talk like a scientist because he isn't one, so he gets confused and inserts the talking points which contradict his earlier claim.

Ohhhhhh brother. MHB trying to be the tallest midget.

Ten theories that were disproved:

1. The discovery of planet Vulcan
2. Spontaneous Generation
3. Expanding Earth
4. Phlogiston Theory
5. The Martian Canals
6. Luminiferous Aether
7. The Blank Slate Theory
8. Phrenology
9. Einstein's Static Universe*
10. Fleischmann and Pns's Cold Fusion**


* Still, like all cosmological ideas, the expanding universe is just a theory, and a small group of scientists today still subscribe to the old static model.

** In recent years, scientists have once again started to experiment with new ways of achieving a so-called “tabletop nuclear reaction,” with some even claiming to have achieved surprising success.


Do you have a link to this? The comment of course still stands. Once a scientific theory is disproven it is either adjusted or thrown out all together. I think the author of whatever you are citing is confusing the meaning of theory. Those above were more hypotheses than anything else. Spontaneous generation and Martian Canals especially.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth

Expanding Earth hypothesis

In the late 19th century, luminiferous aether, æther or ether, meaning light-bearing aether, was the postulated medium for the propagation of light.[1]
Following the negative outcome of aether-drift experiments like the Michelson–Morley experiment, the concept of aether as a mechanical medium having a state of motion lost adherents. It has been replaced in modern physics by the theory of relativity and quantum theory.

Leonard Suskind, one of the most prominent theoretical physicists alive, has stated that virtually every theory/law of physics will possibly be proven incorrect. (He does hold out that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ie. entropy, may survive.) He also has stated that it is unlikely that we will ever "know everything" about the universe.

The top theoretical physicists today have major disagreements about: (1) what quantum mechanics is (Richard Feynman has noted that no one understands QM). There are at least two prominent interpretations. (2) String theory has about 5 variations. (3) Although Cosmic Inflation resolves some uncomfortable problems, there is no agreement as to how it occurred. (4) Finding the Higgs boson, assists in explaining about 5% of the universe. Now there is some thought that there may be at least a second, and as many as five different, Higgs-like bosons. (5) We know gravity works and there are several theories as to why it works, there is no proof nor consensus.

As an example, loop quantum gravity attempts to combine general relativity and QM. People are working on this, and it does have some attractive possibilities, but we are no where near proving that it is the answer.

So did Bush inherit a recession Socratic??????


but I digress, Yes theories are revised all the time but the key here is once they are disproven they are no longer theories. This is literally in the first chapter of every science text book around the world. Why this is controversial or debatable escapes me.

(02-26-2014 09:59 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  So did Bush inherit a recession Socratic??????


but I digress, Yes theories are revised all the time but the key here is once they are disproven they are no longer theories. This is literally in the first chapter of every science text book around the world. Why this is controversial or debatable escapes me.

Probably because sometimes the disproving is itself questioned.

Michelson-Morley is a classic example of a widely held theory being disproven. The luminiferous aether theory was a pure speculative theory that didn't stand up to experimental verification (sort of like Leonard proving Sheldon wrong).

Prominent physicist Fred Hoyle went to his deathbed denying the Big Bang in favor of his Steady State Theory. Hoyle was a gadfly by any standard, but he was an accomplished physicist who let his own pride get in the way of science.

As an aside, I've always thought that Alan Guth's inflation could be met with a response of, to borrow a phrase from The Church Lady, "how convenient."

Reddit also banned discussion of the latest Snowden revelations: how gov't agents infiltrate and disrupt the internet and destroy reputations. Can't blame that on the peer review policy.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/201...on-interne