Well…maybe not so much.
Well, not really. Vox, however, illustrates a point that I spent no small amount of time making during my tour of duty at Southern Baptist Theological Cemetary::
Clearly, a bright line needs to be delineated between scientific evidence that has been independently replicated by experiment, scientific evidence that could be independently replicated but has not been, and scientific evidence that cannot be independently replicated by experiment. And furthermore, it is necessary to stop giving the latter two types of scientific evidence, or more properly, potential scientific evidence, the same level of credence that is given to actual scientific evidence that has been reliably and independently replicated.
I recall a spat I had with one of the leftists who clamored that anyone contesting the anthropogenic global warming dogma was either ignorant or stupid. I pointed out to him that, when you cut through the B.S., there are basically three types of scientific “information”:
(1) Scientific fact: that which has been demonstrated and replicated experimentally;
(2) Scientific opinion: hypotheses which have not, but potentially (key word there) could be–experimentally verified;
(3) Scientific opinion that gets reported as fact: hypotheses that have not been proven through experimentation, but nonetheless get reported as Holy Writ.
Examples of (1): Newtons Laws of Motion; the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
Examples of (2): various theories regarding the behavior of subatomic particles. On one hand, there are observational bases for the hypotheses; OTOH some of those hypotheses are yet to be conclusively verified through experimentation.
Examples of (3): anthropogenic global warming; various theories of evolution; premises that embryonic stem cells hold the promise for the cure for everything from jock itch to the deadliest cancers.
When arguing on such matters on this space, I have a simple warning: don’t bother coming over here spewing opinion and then telling me “it is science” if you have no experimental basis to show.
I will call BS every time.
Whether you are arguing for macro-evolution, global warming, or even young earth creationism, we require honesty here:
(1) There is a huge difference between that which has been demonstrated by experimentation versus mere opinions about observations. We will never begrudge you for your opinion, but don’t come over here telling us how “scientific” it is if it is not.
(2) We must be honest about the limits of science. Science is great for understanding natural phenomena that can be duplicated via experimentation. That understanding has driven the development of no small number of technologies. If you can read this, you are enjoying the fruits of science.
OTOH, there are things that science CANNOT do for you.
Science cannot prove there is a God, let alone which model of God–Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc., or even no God–is valid. I can point to science to make a rational case for faith in a higher authority, but it would be less than intellectually honest to give you an article of faith and then tell you it is scientific.
Science cannot establish the veracity of miracle accounts, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. Again, those are articles of faith.
At best, archaeology can help establish facts, but even that has limits: you are limited to what has been discovered to date. 150 years ago, Biblical skeptics touted the lack of archaeological evidence for Biblical accounts. Since then, archaeology has been quite favorable–rather than destructive–to Biblical accounts. In the world of Biblical scholarship, conservatives have made advances that liberals never thought possible 50 years ago.
Even then, archaeology is not science. What you are dealing with is observable data of varying quality, not experimental data that is reproducible.
is closer to Scientology than to real science.
Isn’t it hilarious that liberals believe in regulating everything, except for scientists who get tax money to promote leftist agendas?
Apparently, Penn State is taking a three monkey approach to the investigation of Michael Mann, whose “hockey stick” graph has resulted in a mother lode of federal funding for the folks in Harrisburg.
MSM is even jumping on the story.
It’s long past time to call this global warming schlock for what it is: a massive effort to impose fascism on the world, all in the name of “saving the planet”.
If Obama wants to strike a blow for the integrity of science, he’d start prosecuting these bastards for fraud.
That is, after he pulled the United States out of the United Nations, and ordered the Navy SEALs to demolish the building.
They attempted to foist a fascist governmental system on the world, all under the pretense of saving the planet. They did it with fraudulent, cherry-picked data. They deliberately hid the truth from governments, as they sought hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money, which they used to promote a socialist agenda cross-dressed in scientific veneer.
The truth is out, now it’s long past freaking time to demand accountability.
…that the “science” behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming cause, is nothing more than an exercise in bovine scatology.
Iowa 30 degrees below normal, and other parts of the Midwest seeing similar cold and heavy snow… Burlington, Vermont getting its biggest snowstorm ever… ice buildup causing partial shutdown of a nuclear power plant in New Jersey… the UK running dangerously low on natural gas, with retirees burning used books for fuel… Seoul seeing its biggest snowfall in 70 years…
…and they say global warming is going on?
More proof that AGW is a pure crock, I say.
HT – Drudge Report
This carping about anthropogenic global warning is closer to scientology than actual science.
I promise I am not making this up.
We need more global warming, before we all freeze our asses off. After all, contrary to recent reports, the latter is what appears to be happening in Antarctica.