🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:27:11 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article <2tdin1hplc682fs8532tid0fga731qi239@4ax.com>, Don Homuth wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:17:17 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com
>> (Brent P) wrote:
>> 
>>>We are discussing how science operates in the real world.
>> 
>> Indeed -- the the basis on which I am criticizing Science is the
>> appropriate one.  Theories without a testable basis and evidence don't
>> cut it.
>
>So archeology isn't a science in your world? 

Show me something in hand, and we'll discuss archaeology.

Show me the Atlantis Myth, and we'll discuss superstition.

>>>Another example for you. Multiple bodies in the solar system appear to 
>>>be warming. Yet, conventional science tells us that warming on earth is 
>>>due to the actions of man and this evidence is ignored in evaluation of 
>>>the apparent warming of planet earth. Anyone who suggests that man may 
>>>not be the cause or may not be the sole cause is met with ridicule and 
>>>insult.
>
>> Does it occur to you that there are different mechanisms involved?
>
>More ridicule. keep it up, you only prove my point. 

A tad touchy, aren't we?  No ridicule involved.  Different planets
heat up differentially for different reasons.  Venus is hot for a
different reason than is Mercury, for example.  The alleged changes
can each have separate mechanisms.

>The point is how 'science' behaves with those facts.

No -- it really isn't.  Science observes, records, collates and deals
with Facts in a hodge-podge of different ways.  But it's not a
superstition withal.

>The science of climate doesn't even consider that fact.

There is no "science of climate" that needs to do so.  There is no
particular evidence that the solar radiation is greater now than
previously.

> Those that do are ridiculed. 

Criticism is not ridicule.

>Because we have to believe that astronomy and climatology have little to 
>do with each other. 

We have no particular reason to believe they do, and good reason to
believe they do not.

>>>> Aliens from the Planet Mongo won't do it.
>
>>>You just proved my point. Ridicule to surpress any ideas that don't mesh 
>>>with the status quo. 
> 
>> Not suppressing anything at all -- merely noting how things look
>> without a testable basis and Actual Evidence to test with.
> 
>> The rest is guesswork.
>
>Which is my point. Much of 'science' is guess work.

But it comes with Actual Evidence.  The sort of guesswork that comes
with superstitions does not.

> If you don't guess 
>the same as everyone else, your ideas, no matter how much in the way of 
>fact and evidence support them, will be ridiculed. 

Heh!  You're being either deliberately silly or are over-sensitive to
criticism.

Scientific Criticism is part of the discussion.

Just not based on superstition.