Activity


  • Dan Dredger wrote a new post, 20 (Science) Questions for the Presidential Candidates 2 years, 11 months ago

    By Matt Miller

    Every election cycle, science gets the short end of the stick. So a collective of scientists—56 scientific organizations representing 10 million scientists and engineers and spearheaded by t […]

    • the Green Party’s Jill Stein, who’s polling way behind, isn’t so great on science-based evidence, either, despite being a medical doctor.

      Despite? A common misconception among the general populace. A scientist may be a physician but a physician is not nessasarily a scientist. I remember the VA in San Francisco having a teaching seminar on the nurse touching to cure disease method ( I forgot the name of this phony practice ) and a talk by that famous fraud Deepak Chopra being sponsored by the VA.

      Hillary “believes in science” but does she really accept all of it? Trump only believes in himself. So, science will go a begging for attention but, hopefully will still be a driving force in the general world.

    • Neodarwinian #1
      Aug 12, 2016 at 2:37 pm

      Hillary “believes in science” but does she really accept all of it?

      “Believes” is a very slippery word!
      Most in the modern world “believe” in the products of science and applications of technology, but the crunch issue is:-
      “Do they fully accept and understand scientific methodology, and all that entails?”

      It is only too easy for the religious, political semantic shufflers, the dishonest, or science illiterates, to claim to “believe in science” (as in the Vatican “belief” in theistic evolution), or for the likes of Ham or climate change deniers, to assure everyone that their pseudoscience, IS the REAL science, and that critics are just conspirators!

      YECs and evangelicals will quite happily USE modern communication technologies, to pervert or deny the physics which makes these systems work!

    • Alan4 @ # 2.

      “Do they fully accept and understand scientific methodology, and all that entails?”

      Let me see if I understand it, Alan.

      Scientific methodology comprises, double blind testing, replication of the experiments and their results, peer review of said outcomes, and world wide publication of the overall discoveries.

      Then, if the results of the work are found to be true, the result is a new, modified or further developed theory.

      And in science, theories unite and explain facts about matter.

      These processes can take years to complete, and if they fail to result in findings which are verifiable and falsifiable, no matter how popular they may have become, or what a pleasing name they may have had attached to them, they will not be accepted as science.

      Thus, the moving finger of scientific methodology will have writ, and having writ will relentlessly move on.

    • Stafford Gordon #3
      Aug 14, 2016 at 7:16 am

      Thus, the moving finger of scientific methodology will have writ, and having writ will relentlessly move on.

      . . . . . and will never go back to asserting competently refuted claims!

    • “. . . . . and will never go back to asserting competently refuted claims!”

      Exactly.

      However, one thing I omitted to mention was that scientific theories are never completely safe from refutation.

    • Stafford Gordon #5
      Aug 14, 2016 at 12:53 pm

      However, one thing I omitted to mention was that scientific theories are never completely safe from refutation.

      That is so, but we must be careful to note, that “refutation of a scientific theory”, (unlike refutation of a creationist assertion), does not mean everything is thrown out of the window and abandoned – as creationists would often have people believe.

      To qualify as a scientific theory (-Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.), it must be based on testable facts and laws, so while the interpretations may be refuted, or added additional information may modify the view, the underlying objective observations remain soundly evidenced in the revised up-dated form of the theory.
      This is especially so in scientific theories which have been confirmed by multiple practical tests, measurements, and observations – where probabilities of validity, are vastly increased and the possibility of individual errors, is vastly reduced.

      Eg. ; The heliocentric theory of planetary orbits, is not “thrown out of the window”, by measurements of a barycentre, or recognition of the movement of stars in a galaxy! – It is slightly modified!

    • But do they believe in the scientific method?

    • Scientific methodology comprises, double blind testing, replication of the experiments and their results, peer review of said outcomes, and world wide publication of the overall discoveries.

      Or, is it what NIST does? (Sadly, not the same thing).

    • Around and around, don’t shoot the messenger he shoots himself. I’m politically left but the only candidate that lives in the land of reality is Donald Trump. We are the same age and everything he says about how the US fits in with the rest of the world lines up with my own observations and experience. Hilary Clinton is the bag lady, collecting bribes from other countries and shady interests. In fact she sold out her country and collected a known $150M, making the greatest power on Earth into a sleazy banana republic.