Here we see the true nature of the deluded, desperate, pedantic loser, faced with direct questions and scientific matters, they escape into some fantasy fuckhead world. A world where nobody can prove they exist.
That’s the final answer. Some fuckhead demanding you prove you exist. And claiming you can’t.
Priceless.
At some point the consensus was wrong about almost every scientific matter. It doesn’t matter in the long run.
Hellfire, the entire history of science is one of some new thing showing everyone was ignorant or wrong.
It’s this ridiculous idea that “as soon as somebody shows everybody was wrong, all the other scientist get on board”. Nothing could be farther from reality.
The overwhelming scientific consensus concerning the Big Bang Theory in the 21st century is … it’s a theory … nothing more. (Physicists learned their lesson in 1905).
I thought the idiots who don’t know what a scientific theory are all dried up when the creationist battles online fill out of vogue.
Incidently, saying that because might have been wrong about something at some point hundreds of years ago does not in any way to say that science is wrong about this now. That is a fallacy.
Also, the reason any accepted scientific facts change in any way are not because of bozos like you. It’s because scientists find new evidence that changes things.
All the posts in here, no new evidence. Just a bunch of bullshit. Science will conform to new evidence, but it won’t conform to bozos.
Poor fellow. Hasn’t kept up with the changes.
So what is the difference between scientific theory and scientific law? No one can describe the universe at time = 0 that can be tested.
But do agree with you on one point, there’s nothing new on these boards that we didn’t know back in the 1970’s when we were building solar hot water heaters, or the 1980’s when we were cutting our power lines living without electricity. But then Jerry died and we all got jobs.
If you don’t know the difference between a scientific theory and law then possibly you should learn the basics before wading into climate change.
Oh, I see … you don’t know the difference either … thought so.
Ad hominem.
Fallacy and the refuge of someone who has no legitimate argument. Attack the person when you cannot dispute the facts.
Priceless…thanks for making my case.
Also, you lose the argument. Better luck next time.
Let’s pretend that’s true. Let’s pretend that neither of us know some basic scientific thing, a rudimentary bit of knowledge, a building block that forms the foundation for more advanced scientific knowledge.
Why on earth would someone who admits they don’t know basic things question those who forgot more about far more complex things?
So yeah, let’s pretend that I don’t know this very basic thing that you concede that you don’t know. If I didn’t, I would defer to people with a lot more knowledge than myself in matters of science.
If I don’t know the basics about cooking a frozen pizza, it would be really ridiculous of me to accuse Wolfgang Puck of not knowing what he’s doing. If I don’t know basic mathematics, taking professors of advanced calculus at MIT to task seems like a foolhardy thing to do.
Yet here you are, gloriously ignorant about some very basic scientific definitions, and you feel confident that people who have years of education, experience, and hands-on work in these fields are wrong.
That’s quite an ego you have. Personally, I defer to experts when I don’t have a clue about the most basic stuff involved. But you feel you know better. That’s pretty funny.
tl:dr
esad
That will never get old.
That was old in Albert Camus’ day.
Scientific theory is a scientific statement that fails rigorous scientific proof, even in a trivial way. Evolution is an excellent example. We only have evidence that is occurred once in all the vastness of the universe and through all time. This fails the requirement that science be duplicatable. I think you’ll agree that when we find life elsewhere, we’ll have to make small corrections to the theory as currently stated.
Twelve year-olds are required to know this before they’re allowed to go to high school.
I know a lay Catholic defers to their priest, but what does it mean to defer to a scientist?
Not making ignorant assertions?
Do you mean like this?
That is completely wrong.
If it were opposite day you would be correct.
The fact that you throw the term “scientific proof” in there also betrays your profound ignorance of the subject.
You don’t understand one of the most rudimentary aspects about science. Yet you have the audacity to feel you can competently discuss an issue which is decidedly more complex than knowing what a scientific theory is.
Although I must concede that you have contributed to science in this thread! You have done a fantastic job of providing evidence that the Dunning–Kruger effect is real. Specifically this:
One should always defer to people who know more about a subject than they do. For the simple reason: They know more than you do.
That makes no sense.
And it’s certainly not a definition of “scientific theory”.
For some strange reason I can’t quote the left ear at the moment. From his post.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
Using that as a starting point, what is the CO2 theory? Or, if you please, what is the theory of greenhouse gas warming? Or the AGW theory?
It’s certainly not “we burn fulels and planet get hotter”, as some idiots have tried to say.
What is the “comprehensive explanation” involved? What are the predictions? What would cause the theory to be modified? How do we know the theory is sound?
These are all basic scientific questions. But you ask somebody who is going on and on about global warming, and they don’t have a clue.
Same for asking “what is the scientific consensus” you are speaking of?
What is the theory that the consensus agrees on?
These are not random questions. Nor is the seeming inability of the rabid warmist to discuss this understandable.