Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Earth In the Midst of Sixth Mass Extinction: the 'Anthropocene Defaunation'

khayman80 Re:no problem (301 comments)

If you think your paranoid delusions are real, maybe your tinfoil hat needs to be tighter.

9 hours ago
top

Earth In the Midst of Sixth Mass Extinction: the 'Anthropocene Defaunation'

khayman80 Re:no problem (301 comments)

No, you publicly claimed you were paranoid. One of the only true things you've ever said.

10 hours ago
top

Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (287 comments)

... Explain to us what Venus vs. Mercury have to do with Pierre Latour's thermodynamic argument in regard to greenhouse warming? ... [Jane Q. Public]

Again, if the Slayers are right, why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Instead of regurgitating bad arguments you find in 30 seconds and which you don't even read carefully, please read carefully before regurgitating even more misinformation for me to debunk.

... you have failed for 2 years to refute Latour. ... You know you can't refute Latour...

I refuted Dr. Latour's claim that mainstream physics predicts infinite warming, and explained how the greenhouse effect is based on the Stefan Boltzmann law and requires a cold upper troposphere. Again, a real skeptic would be checking my calculation that a completely enclosed heated plate would reach an equilibrium temperature of 235F (386K).

10 hours ago
top

Earth In the Midst of Sixth Mass Extinction: the 'Anthropocene Defaunation'

khayman80 Re:no problem (301 comments)

It's worthy of note in your paranoia diagnosis...

10 hours ago
top

Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (287 comments)

... the part I was referencing was the part about Venus. ... I knew next to nothing about the subject. ... [Jane Q. Public]

Do you see how crackpot websites which make "ridiculous" claims that you might have made when you "knew next to nothing about the subject" might not be the best source of science education?

... I just did you a favor and looked up something you asked for on Google. His arguments are not my own and I did not even read them carefully. I merely looked them up for you because you seemed to wanted to argue about yet another straw-man that had next to nothing to do with anything I had said. ... [Jane Q. Public]

Venus vs. Mercury has everything to do with the Slayer nonsense you're spreading. You're just regurgitating even more misinformation that I have to debunk. That's the exact opposite of a favor! It's the same absurd behavior I've repeatedly asked you to stop.

Again, thanks for finally being honest. You’re not interested in valid science, just something you can use to argue, even if it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. You’ve used this "principle of superficiality" to spread civilization-paralyzing misinformation which seems plausible at first glance to non-scientists, but doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. In fact, I said as much last year:

"... each contrarian is more effective at superficial "science communication" than the average scientist. ... Once you get a contrarian started, a stream of regurgitated-but-superficially-plausible nonsense spews forth. Just consider Jane Q. Public. ..."

...I was not present... [Jane Q. Public]

Actually, you did respond. Repeatedly. Sure you weren't present?

11 hours ago
top

Earth In the Midst of Sixth Mass Extinction: the 'Anthropocene Defaunation'

khayman80 Re:no problem (301 comments)

Once again, you're wrong. Furthermore, the fact that you can't even spell "Layzej" correctly suggests your Scooby gang is drunk at the wheel.

12 hours ago
top

Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (287 comments)

You cited a non-peer-reviewed crackpot website which claims:

"...the fact that the CO2 increase is linear, while at the same time the amount of CO2 released by humans has grown exponentially, is the primary proof that humans are NOT responsible for the change in CO2 concentration..." [Robert Clemenzi]

I tried to tell you that humans are responsible for the change in CO2 concentration. You even seemed to agree, calling Clemenzi's claim "ridiculous".

Before I waste time debunking the rest of that nonsense you cited, I'm wondering if you're regressing again. Hopefully I don't have to prove we're responsible for the CO2 rise again. If you still consider it "ridiculous" to deny that basic fact, do you see how Clemenzi might not be the best source of science education?

yesterday
top

Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (287 comments)

Charming. Do you explain the fact that Venus is hotter than Mercury using basketball player gloves, gray Oreos, or truly original groundbreaking science?

yesterday
top

Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (287 comments)

... Since this person is not making any scientific argument anyway, but simply attempting ad-hominem, and saying "so-and-so is wrong" without ANY evidence (which is all he can do, because he doesn't have any), this was a completely pointless exercise on his part. He was simply making another attempt at dragging my persona through the mud. I can only conclude that was his only purpose, since he didn't make any actual, substantive arguments. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-25]

A real skeptic would be checking my calculations but Jane can't even acknowledge them. If the Slayers are right, why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

Mercury's daytime surface temperature is 350C while Venus has a nighttime surface temperature of ~470C.

... despite the fact that Venus is 87% farther away from the Sun than Mercury, implying sunlight 3.5x weaker.

... and despite the fact that Mercury's albedo is ~0.1 and Venus's albedo is ~0.65.

... and despite the fact that a "night" on Venus lasts ~58 Earth days, during which the temperature barely changes from that at "high noon".

... Since all atmospheres must get colder with altitude as kinetic energy is transformed into potential energy in a planet’s gravitational field, the lower atmosphere must be warmer than upper atmosphere, even if there is no radiation involved. This follows from the perfect gas law, PV = nRT. ... [Dr. Latour, 2011-11-06]

Riiiight. That's why the stratosphere doesn't exist. I've explained that long-term equilibrium surface temperature is determined by conservation of energy, not the ideal gas law. (If scientists were wrong, basketball players would have to dribble with gloves because the pressurized ball would have to be very hot.)

Many Slayers blame equilibrium surface temperature on pressure, which I call the basketball player glove fantasy. None of the Slayers at WUWT would answer this question: would Venus have the same surface temperature if its atmosphere were pure nitrogen, which isn’t a greenhouse gas?

I've even seen a Slayer convince himself that all objects have the same albedo, which I call the gray Oreo fantasy.

Will Jane explain the fact that Venus is hotter than Mercury using basketball player gloves, gray Oreos, or truly original groundbreaking science?

yesterday
top

Earth In the Midst of Sixth Mass Extinction: the 'Anthropocene Defaunation'

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (301 comments)

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... the absorption rate of real bodies depends on whether the absorber T (radiating or not), is less than the intercepted radiation T, or not. If the receiver T > intercepted T, no absorption occurs; if the receiver T < intercepted T the absorption rate may be as great as proportional to (T intercepted – T absorber), depending on the amounts reflected, transmitted or scattered. What actually happens is the chiller radiates to the hot plate, but the plate cannot absorb any of it because it is too cold. The hot plate reflects, transmits or scatters colder radiation, just like my roof does for cold radio waves. ... Energy from colder cannot heat hotter further because the second law of thermodynamics says so, because nature says so; always and everywhere. ... Conclusion, the hot plate remains at 150. All physics I know supports it; no physics offered refutes it. Spencer mistakenly assumed the 150 plate absorbs incident 100 radiation ... The generalized claim that a cooler object placed near a warmer object cannot result in a rise in temperature of the warmer object stands. ... [Dr. Latour, 2011-11-06]

If Dr. Latour understood the second law refers to net heat, he'd agree that adding a cold plate makes the heated plate lose heat slower. That's okay because net heat still flows from hot to cold, i.e. more heat moves from hot to cold than vice versa. But Dr. Latour disagrees, wrongly claiming that hot objects can't absorb any radiation from colder objects. He's not alone:

Continued here due to Slashdot's filter.

2 days ago
top

Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department

khayman80 Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (287 comments)

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... the absorption rate of real bodies depends on whether the absorber T (radiating or not), is less than the intercepted radiation T, or not. If the receiver T > intercepted T, no absorption occurs; if the receiver T < intercepted T the absorption rate may be as great as proportional to (T intercepted – T absorber), depending on the amounts reflected, transmitted or scattered. What actually happens is the chiller radiates to the hot plate, but the plate cannot absorb any of it because it is too cold. The hot plate reflects, transmits or scatters colder radiation, just like my roof does for cold radio waves. ... Energy from colder cannot heat hotter further because the second law of thermodynamics says so, because nature says so; always and everywhere. ... Conclusion, the hot plate remains at 150. All physics I know supports it; no physics offered refutes it. Spencer mistakenly assumed the 150 plate absorbs incident 100 radiation ... The generalized claim that a cooler object placed near a warmer object cannot result in a rise in temperature of the warmer object stands. ... [Dr. Latour, 2011-11-06]

If Dr. Latour understood the second law refers to net heat, he'd agree that adding a cold plate makes the heated plate lose heat slower. That's okay because net heat still flows from hot to cold, i.e. more heat moves from hot to cold than vice versa. But Dr. Latour disagrees, wrongly claiming that hot objects can't absorb any radiation from colder objects. He's not alone:

Continued here due to Slashdot's filter.

3 days ago
top

Oso Disaster Had Its Roots In Earlier Landslides

khayman80 Re:Just noticed your earlier comment... (64 comments)

Again, thanks for the thoughtful feedback. One reason I'm criticizing Jane is precisely that I respect how difficult it is to be tg, and unlike Jane I feel like I "have an obligation to help them feel less uncomfortable with it" and that it's unquestionably better that tg is "becoming more socially acceptable." I get that nobody would choose to be tg, which means that their gender identities either legitimately conflict with their chromosomes or even that they're simply gender confused, as you say. This means actual transgendered people are expressing an inner truth when they bend their genders.

That's one reason Jane's comments are harmful. He doesn't seem to be expressing an inner truth. In my opinion, he seems like a destructive narcissist who's cynically posing as a woman on a largely male website to get his repugnant comments more attention. There's a difference between Jane's behavior and actual gender confusion, and I think some of the cultural resistance toward accepting tg might come from a mistaken perception that the transgendered are like Jane/Lonny Eachus. Instead, the transgendered are expressing an inner truth about their gender identity which might be more socially acceptable if people like Jane/Lonny Eachus weren't giving them a bad name.

Again, if I'm wrong then I'll apologize, retract my accusations, and support Lonny Eachus as ve experiments with vis gender identity.

3 days ago
top

Oso Disaster Had Its Roots In Earlier Landslides

khayman80 Just noticed your earlier comment... (64 comments)

Gender is not binary. There are, I believe, quite a large number of transgender, transexual and gender fluid people in the slashdot community. I do not know about the person you are arguing with but I suspect they should and are losing their arguments. However if you attack them on the basis of expressed gender then you are going to alienate a lot of transgender people if your attitude to them is that they are prima facie liars. I would think it best to drop the gender issue. [Demena, 2014-07-20]

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I support the transgendered community and certainly don't consider them liars. But it seems very unlikely that Jane/Lonny Eachus is part of that community. If I'm wrong then I'll apologize, retract my accusations, and support Lonny Eachus as she transitions to Jane.

3 days ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

Just like you "admitted you made mistakes" in the three examples I gave above? Have you also forgotten that you're a man named Lonny Eachus dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet while accusing scientists of fraudulent bullshit lies, or do I have to link to that again too? (Go ahead, pretend you don't remember any of this so I have to link it all again. Your absurd evasions are adorable.)

about two weeks ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

By now you've wrongly suggested that I'm four different people.

Really? And what people are those? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-15]

One two three four.

But since you're struggling I'll throw you a bone. Some of the AC's on number four are a different matter. Seen a new squirrel you've never seen before? Squirrel!

about two weeks ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

And I'll repeat the question I asked you years ago: why do you ASSUME that meant you? Why do you ASSUME I named that file myself? Why do you ASSUME it was even my file to begin with? [Jane Q. Public]

So you didn't name or even make the file you linked in a public comment at my website. You didn't name or even make the screenshot of our conversation, which you defended after quoting me saying that you made the screenshot. You didn't name the file "asshole-pseudo-scientist.png" and that doesn't refer to me, despite the fact that you've been calling me an asshole for years. And still are.

Again, you're being absurdly evasive, just like every time your misinformation is challenged. Except this time you're blatantly lying. Are you also deliberately lying when you spread all your civilization-paralyzing misinformation? If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.

"A lying liar who has to keep lying to cover his previous lies. -- IndEx http://fb.me/2vQzP38Ln" [Joe Newby, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-10]

about two weeks ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

So when you asked "why didn't you bother to repeat the part...?" you actually meant that I had repeated that part and responded to it?

about two weeks ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

So when you repeatedly claimed I'd missed where you admitted you were wrong, you meant that I'd quoted you and explained that you'd manufactured unwarranted doubt by inserting words like could and theoretically. I also explained that at the same time, you made additional claims which were never challenged, like equating the MSW effect with lasers. That's why you asked "why didn't you bother to repeat the part...?" when I actually had repeated that part and responded to it?

about two weeks ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

Fourth time's the charm, maybe? It's fascinating that you wrongly accused me of wanting to ask you 20 questions (then 7 billion!) about your identity when I've only been asking one. Repeatedly. Are you Lonny Eachus? By now you've wrongly suggested that I'm four different people. When you get to 20, will you finally say whether or not you're Lonny Eachus?

I wrote "I now see how, theoretically anyway, it could be a probabilistically-determined superposition. That clears up a lot."

Again, that was the last quote in my debunking that you repeatedly and wrongly claimed I missed.

about two weeks ago

Submissions

top

Editor Resigns Over Spencer and Braswell Paper

khayman80 khayman80 writes  |  more than 2 years ago

khayman80 writes "The editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, Wolfgang Wagner, writes:

... as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published. After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing. With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011 [2], the main author’s personal homepage [3], the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes [4], and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News [5], to name just a few. ... why, after a more careful study of the pro and contra arguments, have I changed my initial view? The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chiefto make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.

"

Link to Original Source

Journals

top

Falsifiability is the basis of science

khayman80 khayman80 writes  |  more than 3 years ago

Just one final clarification for you - keep in mind that my comments on error bars were musings on the falsifiability of global warming, from a philosophy of science perspective. [ShakaUVM]

That's quite a euphemism for repeatedly accusing scientists of failing to construct and test falsifiable theories, or accusing them of dishonestly claiming more knowledge than there is.

Because

Now, I'd grown accustomed to 'spiritual'Â claims, and had decided to ignore them because they weren't falsifiable . ... I would like to see falsifiable evidence that they exist, rather than mere supposition. [emphasis added in all quotes] [Dumb Scientist]

science

My sense of duty to science stops here, unfortunately, so I can't falsify this hypothesis. [Dumb Scientist]

is

scientific theories have to make unique, falsifiable predictions. ... A metatheory has to be specific enough that it can be falsified entirely, though, otherwise it's not scientific. ... The Big Bang metatheory could be proven wrong by ... in the strictest sense his theory was falsified in the 1940s ... Evolution can also be falsified ... [Dumb Scientist]

primarily

... But don't include experimental data or unfalsifiable assumptions about parallel universes in order to account for fine-tuning of any physical constants ... [Dumb Scientist]

DEFINED

... presumably high-speed photography could falsify Chris's explanation. On the other hand, it's harder to falsify my hypothesis because ... [Dumb Scientist]

by

I agree that models which don't make falsifiable predictions are worthless. I've just never seen that happen in peer reviewed journals. [Dumb Scientist]

falsifiability,

It's definitely falsifiable science, too. [Dumb Scientist]

you

My third piece of evidence is the concept of falsifiability. You see, a scientific hypothesis needs more than naturalism to be valid. It also needs to be falsifiable in the sense that an experiment (either real or gedanken) can be performed that will either support the theory or disprove it. Evolution, for example, is falsifiable in many different ways. ... any scientific theory proposes a naturalistic explanation for some feature of the world, and makes falsifiable predictions ... Because 'Intelligent Design'Â is not naturalistic and makes no falsifiable predictions, it not only isn't right, it isn't even wrong. ... it's clear that you think evolution produces no predictions and is not falsifiable. ... supernatural explanations are ... not falsifiable ... [Dumb Scientist]

should

But evolution as a whole just isn't comparable to an unfalsifiable concept like the Flying Spaghetti Monster or intelligent design. ... Evolution is falsifiable science, while intelligent design is a religious belief. [Dumb Scientist]

probably

... evolution is only compatible with the evidence 'all life uses the same DNA,'Â which means evolution is falsifiable science and creationism is theology instead. [Dumb Scientist]

just

It's possible that abiogenesis happened several times, so finding two types of DNA wouldn't falsify evolution. ... evolution is falsifiable science. ... I've explored the idea that computer simulations can falsify evolution here. ... It's yet another way to falsify evolution. It wouldn't falsify creationism ... when did you offer these falsifiable predictions for creationism/ID? ... Please show me specific falsifiable predictions that could - in principle - falsify creationism/ID. [Dumb Scientist]

admit

The word 'falsifiable' isn't applicable, because creationism/ID isn't science. ... that's my central point: creationism/ID isn't science because it's not falsifiable. Every time I mention this, you provide an example that could falsify evolution and claim that it's (somehow) a way to falsify creationism. [Dumb Scientist]

that

I'll note that too short a time between the bombardment and the first microbes could falsify evolution. ... it's one of the simplest ways to falsify evolution. ... they're not making falsifiable statements. When omnipotence (or omniscience, or any kind of supernatural power) is an acceptable answer, falsification is impossible because there's literally no limit to what an omnipotent being could do. [Dumb Scientist]

your

While I admire your attempt to adhere to the scientific method, I'm not sure that these examples constitute falsifiability in a rigorous sense. If every animal had different DNA bases, that would utterly demolish evolution. All of the predictions you're offering as falsifications merely seem to add a few more 'why'Â questions (as you say) to an already gigantic stack of 'why'Â questions that theologians have struggled with for centuries. [Dumb Scientist]

nonsensical

In science, nothing is ever proven true. Experiments might sometimes fail to falsify theories, but that's very different from being 'proven true.'Â [Dumb Scientist]

and

I don't know if you're discussing heresy or orthodoxy. All I'm saying is that you're discussing religion of some variety, not falsifiable science. [Dumb Scientist]

insulting

You say that as though my life's work isn't developing and falsifying hypotheses. ... [Dumb Scientist]

comments

But, as I've stressed, creationism can't ever be refuted, because its inherently supernatural properties make it compatible with any potential discovery. On the other hand, I've listed two simple falsifications of evolution: chimpanzees in the Precambrian and many species with totally different DNA bases. ... Note that I'm not saying creationism is wrong! Quite the opposite! It's just not a scientific theory because it isn't falsifiable. [Dumb Scientist]

on

Scientific theories compete in the sense that every new observation either supports or falsifies them. ... [Dumb Scientist]

error

Science is falsifiable. It produces specific predictions. Creationism/ID doesn't. [Dumb Scientist]

bars

That's what falsifiability means. There has to be some type of evidence which could, in principle, prove the theory wrong. I've linked to many many more tests in the conversation that list was taken from. [Dumb Scientist]

were

Evolution is thus falsifiable in that manner. Creationism can work either way, so it's not falsifiable and therefore not science. ... It's just not falsifiable, and therefore not a scientific statement. [Dumb Scientist]

"libel".

And yet again, the distinction is that your belief can't ever be disproven because it's based on religious faith, whereas scientific theories have to be testable by definition. [Dumb Scientist]

... It's nice to see that we both agree on the core matter. ... [ShakaUVM]

No, the "core matter" here is that you're repeatedly and baselessly libelling an entire subfield of physicists, which I most certainly do not agree with, in any sense of the word.

Why do people insult scientists in this manner? It's like telling a plumber "Oh, come on... you don't really know the difference between a bathtub and a sink." Presumably, people wouldn't insult him by suggesting that he's fundamentally incompetent at his life's work. Maybe that's because plumbers carry big wrenches, while scientists carry calculators? [Dumb Scientist]

... the point of my original post above was to talk about the very paradox of verification and falsification in regards to climate science... which I think it seems you agree with. They are very problematic. [ShakaUVM]

This is the second time you've claimed that I agree with your bizarre misconceptions. Please stop. It wasn't true then, and it's not true now. As I've already discussed, some physics topics can seem very problematic if you spend your time (for instance) running a small business. That's why professional physicists spend that time doing physics and getting structured feedback from other physicists. As it turns out, experience and peer-review can help one tackle subjects which armchair quarterbacks might consider "very problematic." If that weren't true, then physicists probably would agree with you... but only if they could manage to stop muttering "f*ckin' magnets, how do they work?"

Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...