Science facts

[Jordan]

I do understand all that and you both give an example of what I mean. There are too many (lousy choices of new) scientific words, terms, and definitions that confuse the working folks with unneeded complexities, multiple meanings, and confusion. A theory should remain a theory and not be defined sometimes as a theory and sometimes as a fact. Any theory that is the best and probable answer should have its own neutrality in the definitions. For example, Unexplained Phenomena--theory--thact--fact...thact being the probable fact still a theory. Crude example but does illustrate my meaning which allows the average worker to follow scientific advances which is vital to our evolutionary advancement as a species. Why call objects of the cosmos matter, supposedly derived from the word material, losing the average street worker and a majority of the popualtion?? Don't tell me that it doesn't matter because, as a matter of fact (and theory), it does. Atter, cosmic stuff, or some other word would of been a lot better but who thinks of the answer perhaps hidden among the philosophers, oil painters, sculpturers, and other classic artists imprisoned as worker slaves by the high society leadership.

I can understand where you're coming from, but specialized fields always have terms with specialized meanings. For example, logic means something different to a programmer and a layperson; more wittily, you can tell a chemist by the way they pronounce unionized.

As far as "new" words go, the use of the word theory in the scientific sense

Spoiler

(not in English, of course)

dates back to around 480 BC(E).

 

[Jordan]

A worthwhile read (unrelated to the current conversation ).

"We need science more than ever, yet many people find it hard to get accurate information about the scientific method and its achievements. Making things more difficult, their misconceptions about science are often driven by logical fallacies, or errors in deductive reasoning. Here are eight of the most common anti-science fallacies."

8 Logical Fallacies That Fuel Anti-Science Sentiments

 

[Nerich]

I can understand where you're coming from, but specialized fields always have terms with specialized meanings. For example, logic means something different to a programmer and a layperson; more wittily, you can tell a chemist by the way they pronounce unionized.

As far as "new" words go, the use of the word theory in the scientific sense

Spoiler

(not in English, of course)

dates back to around 480 BC(E).

All true and, as I say, the problem that keeps scientists from going further with mathematics physics Einstein's Relativity theories and, with that, cannot identify the meaning of (human) life and evolution whose path is laid out with scientific discoveries and research for all the population to be involved with if evolution is for all of us and to advance. Magian Priests going back to Mesopatamia were the religious leaders and experts specializing in biology, astronomy, astrology, philosophy, botany, psychology duh, medicine, research, and more because all those arts and crafts are part of a team and you cannot break up the team and expect to go far. Instead, our sciences/religions have fallen into the old 'divide and conquer' tactic and are now stagnant because of too much confusion and misleading words amongst the basic definitions of who we are that is partly physical science.

 

[Jordan]

All true and, as I say, the problem that keeps scientists from going further with mathematics physics Einstein's Relativity theories and, with that, cannot identify the meaning of (human) life and evolution whose path is laid out with scientific discoveries and research for all the population to be involved with if evolution is for all of us and to advance. Magian Priests going back to Mesopatamia were the religious leaders and experts specializing in biology, astronomy, astrology, philosophy, botany, psychology duh, medicine, research, and more because all those arts and crafts are part of a team and you cannot break up the team and expect to go far. Instead, our sciences/religions have fallen into the old 'divide and conquer' tactic and are now stagnant because of too much confusion and misleading words amongst the basic definitions of who we are that is partly physical science.

Science hasn't been stagnant by any stretch of the imagination.

While neither religion nor science is mutually exclusive, one requires faith while the other requires empirical evidence. That can put them at odds.

 

[Nerich]

Science hasn't been stagnant by any stretch of the imagination.

Totally disagree except that perhaps stagnation is the wrong adjective. How about 'purposely being held back'?!
btw, when I look at our avatar pics it looks like me passing over you in flight waving as you give a greeting smile between our flames. Funny.

 

[Jordan]

Totally disagree except that perhaps stagnation is the wrong adjective. How about 'purposely being held back'?!
btw, when I look at our avatar pics it looks like me passing over you in flight waving as you give a greeting smile between our flames. Funny.

Science isn't monolithic. There are researchers researching from different, competing labs all over the world. To think that science is being withheld as part of some kind of global conspiracy when researchers themselves suffer from maladies that could be treated by their research is ludicrous. Not to mention the fame, recognition, and money that a researcher and their institute could earn from a discovery.

Research is a surprisingly cut-throat industry, and there's no incentive to cover up findings in a world whose axiom is, "publish or perish." As the significant other of a cognitive neuropsychology researcher, I can personally attest to the truth of these statements.

On the plus side, that kind of environment does allow that peer-reviewed papers are gone over with a fine-toothed comb, and will be retracted if they're discovered to be faulty. See: Andrew Wakefield.

 

[Nerich]

Science isn't monolithic. There are researchers researching from different, competing labs all over the world. To think that science is being withheld as part of some kind of global conspiracy when researchers themselves suffer from maladies that could be treated by their research is ludicrous. Not to mention the fame, recognition, and money that a researcher and their institute could earn from a discovery.

Research is a surprisingly cut-throat industry, and there's no incentive to cover up findings in a world whose axiom is, "publish or perish." As the significant other of a cognitive neuropsychology researcher, I can personally attest to the truth of these statements.

On the plus side, that kind of environment does allow that peer-reviewed papers are gone over with a fine-toothed comb, and will be retracted if they're discovered to be faulty. See: Andrew Wakefield.

Competing labs, as you put it, do have an incentive for cover up known as competition for fame and wealth, as you state. If science is not monolithic and global scientists research in secrecy keeping results to themselves for reasons of possible fame and wealth resulting from a scientific discovery then we may correctly Label such a concept counter to scientific advancement of human life and understanding without calling it a conspiracy.

 

[Dana Jean]

Identifying the aids virus became a game with people's lives between France and the U.S. Their pissing contest cost lives.

 

[blunthead]

Argon and Neon walked into a bar and ordered drinks. The bartender said, "I'm sorry, we don't serve your kind here." They didn't react.

 

[blunthead]

 

[Grandpa]

Hm. I don't know about science being stagnant. I will say in my lifetime, I have seen human knowledge of the natural world increase many times over, the science in our lives become more and more infused and taken for granted, and our understanding of the cosmos, from macro to micro, expand exponentially.

I've been on a video chat with someone in Afghanistan. I've seen near-Earth worlds identified orbiting stars far away. Grandma and I were talking about the possibilities self-driving car, and I shocked her by saying I'm not opposed to it - sometimes on long drives, it'd be nice to get some work done. I talk with my phone as often as I do real people outside of my family - and it talks back. We map out DNA, manipulate genes for specific results, and routinely figure out crimes from molecules left on items of evidence a decade ago.

In about a million different ways, science has advanced in amazing mileage over the years. Now, the human capacity to understand, synthesize, and properly cope with the knowledge it gains - that's another matter.

 

[DiO'Bolic]

Climate Change talks and negotiations with world leaders are going on in Paris. Central to any agreement reached is the question... Should the US fight climate change by giving billions of dollars per year to countries that make no binding commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?

 

[blunthead]

Hm. I don't know about science being stagnant. I will say in my lifetime, I have seen human knowledge of the natural world increase many times over, the science in our lives become more and more infused and taken for granted, and our understanding of the cosmos, from macro to micro, expand exponentially.

I've been on a video chat with someone in Afghanistan. I've seen near-Earth worlds identified orbiting stars far away. Grandma and I were talking about the possibilities self-driving car, and I shocked her by saying I'm not opposed to it - sometimes on long drives, it'd be nice to get some work done. I talk with my phone as often as I do real people outside of my family - and it talks back. We map out DNA, manipulate genes for specific results, and routinely figure out crimes from molecules left on items of evidence a decade ago.

In about a million different ways, science has advanced in amazing mileage over the years. Now, the human capacity to understand, synthesize, and properly cope with the knowledge it gains - that's another matter.

What do you think will happen?

 

[blunthead]

Climate Change talks and negotiations with world leaders are going on in Paris. Central to any agreement reached is the question... Should the US fight climate change by giving billions of dollars per year to countries that make no binding commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?

C'mon, science is required to be political.

 

[DiO'Bolic]

C'mon, science is required to be political.

Never let a perceived climate crisis go to waste, eh?

 

[mcpon14]

Argon and Neon walked into a bar and ordered drinks. The bartender said, "I'm sorry, we don't serve your kind here." They didn't react.

Lol.

 

[Grandpa]

Climate Change talks and negotiations with world leaders are going on in Paris. Central to any agreement reached is the question... Should the US fight climate change by giving billions of dollars per year to countries that make no binding commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?

I have observations, but it would up in Hot Topics, and that wouldn't be fair to the spirit of the thread or the science of climate change, which should be objective, not political. Exploring facts should be used for results rather than as tools to be twisted for political ends.

But there's more than one central theme. Here's a primer on ten of them: 10 Things To Know About The U.N. Climate Talks In Paris : NPR

 

[Grandpa]

Speaking of energy and pollution and politics...

In a display of typical government inefficiency, a NASA building in California consumes vastly lowered amounts of water, runs without a discernible carbon footprint, and is net positive on energy usage.

Wait. What?

NASA Uses Lessons From Space To Design An Efficient Building : All Tech Considered : NPR

 

[Grandpa]

What do you think will happen?

I think we'll cope. We generally do. We'll backslide, we'll see the damages, we'll advance, lather, rinse, repeat. But we'll cope.

 

[Nerich]

According to science there are an estimated 170 billion galaxies. HAHAhahhahahahhhaaa. That is so ridiculous even Hubble is laughing! The best is that in a so called ever expanding universe of galaxies (think about it the big bang explosion expanding how could galaxies still collide like ours predicted to one day collide with Andromeda galaxy when they are expanding away from each other after that big bang (theory)) that galaxies could collide. Impossible, to quote Charlie Sheen and yes, i am a Sheen fan. We are going to rid th world of fake AIDS and the garbage that says there are roughly 200 billion galaxies. In any case, viagra scientists now claim that there is a galaxy that is rectangular after two spiral galaxies collided to form a rectangle galaxy. Get off the drugs China.
Rare Rectangle Galaxy Discovered