freddybobs68k says:

#47 Bobbo

‘BTW–Wretched==good job. Scientific consensus is ALWAYS WRONG (with 99.9 percent confirmation).’

Science doesn’t really claim ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. It just produces models that are ‘useful’. Generally in the form that they can predict things. Newtonian physics certainly is not ‘wrong’. It is used on a daily basis and produces useful results.

You’re right that Einstein and and others produced new models – which newtonian physics is a subset. But that certainly doesn’t mean ‘Scientific consensus is ALWAYS WRONG’.

Unless you mean everybody is wrong about everything – in that new ideas, observations and models will invariably occur.

Dallas says:

I recall that after Obama was elected by the majority of Americans that the Conservatives were not allowed to speak.

JimR says:

As well as the pro-con list, I would like to see an IPCC sanctioned graph depicting global temperature for the past 5000 years or even 10,000 years. I’ve searched everywhere, but sometimes I strike out when not searching with the right parameters. Regardless, pro IPCC pundits MUST have seen such a chart. How else to illustrate the dire changes man has never experienced before. Anyone?

The0ne says:

Guys, seriously, don’t give this thread anymore attention than it deserves. You’re wasting you time and effort. It’s purely to incite arguments that have, over the course of ONLY a few days, been dominant on DU.

testtubebaby says:

We should do something about global cooling. NOW!

amodedoma says:

It’s a crazy chaotic universe and in it there are two kinds of beings, those that survive and those that don’t. In questions of survival I always resort to my boyscout training. Be Prepared.

jescott418 says:

Did’nt Blair go along with Bush on the WMD in Iraq?

FRAGaLOT says:

Blair gets paid for spewing this bullshit, an will get paid more money when it does. Same with Gore. They really don’t give a flying fuck about clean air and water. They want to guilt you into thinking you’re destorying the planet so you’ll give them more money to fix it.

fuck these people!

Dr Dodd says:

#76-Phydeau-conservatives ran this country for the last 8 years…

Wrong again. There were no conservatives in the Bush Administration only moderate fence sitters.

You think that there are adults in the Obama White House? No Way, only arrogant, spoiled little children as far as the eye can see.

Mr. Fusion says:

#56, Cursor,

Alchemy,

Initially alchemy was the search to turn lead into gold. That ability would lead to immortality. It didn’t make anyone much money. BUT, it was a start in the quest to understand the elements that make up our world. A science? No. Dabbling to discover? Yes.

Bleeding,

True, it was widely practiced. Medicine though was not a science and little of what was believed about life processes were better than the local priest praying for you. Medicine didn’t become a science until the middle of the 19th century with the advent of pain management and later the discovery of infection. Medicine was seldom a big money maker, especially when your patient died. Most doctors were already rich to begin with.

Midwifery

Totally wrong on this one. The midwife was a mainstay until the late 19th century / early 20th. Doctors were initially called in only for difficult births and this gradually grew into hospital births. Hospital births didn’t become very popular until the early 20th century. Before then, 2/3s of hospital births died from infection. After disinfection and sanitary procedures were implemented did doctors supplant midwifes.

Racism and phrenology,

Never mainstays of scientific thought. The modern equivalent would be Scientology. Even though a fraud, very few made any money off of racism and phrenology was a parlor game.

ETC

While unpleasant to watch, it did have much success before the advent of psychotropic drugs. It is still used in some cases where drugs have failed. Treatments are usually 6-12 episodes, two or three times a week. The procedure is effective in acute cases of depression and mania, but not a long term treatment. This is no more rewarding for doctors / hospitals than any other procedure. As it reduces hospital stays though, it saves money in the end. Adverse side effects are minimal and greatly outweighed by the benefit.

Four and one half wrong. I guess that makes for bad science on your part.

bob says:

Fusion, you clueless pinhead.

No one made money from racism? ETC (sic) is still rarely used so it was never overused? Some of the guy’s examples are inapt but your response is just plain dull witted.

How about heavier-than-air flight is impossible, various races are inferior or superior, man cannot run a 4 minute mile, we are all going to die in a malthusian nightmare of overpopulation, we are all going to freeze to death, bathing causes illness, smoking is healthy, alar is killing our children. Overbearing mothers cause schizophrenia, homosexuality is a disease. Numerous practices of anesthesiologists have proven incredibly risky.

It’s just plain stupid to argue that science is infallible. It’s a failure to understand what science is.

Nit pick with the level of consensus on these widely-held expert beliefs all you like- the fact is the ‘consensus’ re: AGW has been oversold, there has in fact been bullying and bs behind the scenes intended to manipulate the result, and – wait for it –

AS A RESULT OF THAT MANIPULATION THE PEOPLE WHO DID THE MANIPULATING ARE NOW VERY, VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE. The whole “where’s the cash” argument is bunk. It is not the case that people are only venal when their goals are “CASH”. People are venal and self-serving in ALL contexts, with no real exceptions.

I apologize for the caps. Fusion is just so… lame.

Obamaforever says:

From: Obamaforever

To: Cursor (aka Mr.hit and run)

per #56

It looks like Mr. Fusion beat me to it. Anyway, here is my two cents.

First some definitions:

science-Any department of knowledge in which the results of investigation have been logically arranged and systematized in the form of hypotheses and general laws subject to verification.

scientific method-A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data

another definition for ‘scientific method’- n principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

History lesson: The modern scientific method crystallized no later than in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Alchemy

definition of alchemy-1. The empirical and speculative chemistry of the Middle ages, concerned primarily with the transmutation of base metals into gold and the search for the alkahest and the panacea. 2. Any preternatural power or process of transmutation.

The definition says it all. Alchemy has nothing to do with the modern scientific method. In fact, the “death” of alchemy was the “birth” of the modern scientific method.

Bleeding

Goofus, the proper term is “bloodletting”.

Bloodletting was used way before the birth of the modern scientific method. The modern scientific method made it possible to learn not to use bloodletting except in a small number of health problems.

Midwifery

Midwifery was practiced way before the birth of the scientific method. Any problems with midwifery was one of politics and not one of science.

Scientific Racism & Craniofacial Anthropometry

This is pure quackery and deals with racism. Racism is irrational by definition and science by definition is rational. Science caused the death of this quackery by showing that it was based on lies and not science.

Electroconvulsive Therapy

This is a procedure and not science. There is little science behind this. It was observed that some people got better after a shock treatment. You cannot blame science that the medical community wants to help people albeit in a way that can cause some people to have adverse side effects.

Mr hit and run, you do not know science. Science is self-correcting. Mr. hit and run, please self-correct your head out of your ass.

Mr. Fusion says:

#80, tsnyder,

Things scientific consensus used to say was ok:

Don’t confuse societal consensus with scientific thought.

Lead pipes were used because they didn’t corrode and were easy to use.

X-Rays were pretty soon realized to cause cell damage and death. Precautions were soon taken.

Leeches, can you provide us any studies suggesting leeches worked?

Strip mining is a not a science. At best it is an engineering practice.

Pesticide use is a science application, not a science. Today we use science to investigate a pesticide’s efficacy and damage to the environment.

Introducing new species is now understood as a dangerous undertaking. That does not mean there was ever a scientific consensus that blanket importation of invasive species was good.

A flat earth was never a “science” fact. Again, it was a social consensus. It was known thousands of years ago that the earth was round. That allowed Chinese astrologers to predict eclipses long before even Jesus was born.

Paleontology and Anthropology have undergone giant steps as the body of knowledge grows, myths and fallacies are corrected, and new discoveries are made. Theories that can be demonstrated are accepted while those that can’t be are discarded.

Buzz says:

Just remember: Everything Al Gore has ever said is a lie, because Cherman KNOWS. Same thing goes for Blair, and anybody else who believes in all this evidence crap.

Hey you kids, get off my lawn.

Obamaforever says:

From: Obamaforever

To: FRAGaLOT

per #77

FRAGaLOT, I suspect that you are like
your posts—short and vile!!!!!!!!!