The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 23    Average: 1.9/5]
32 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 6033
Rating: 1.9
Category: Science
Date: 08/31/13 04:01 PM

32 Responses to 7 MIsused Science Terms

  1. Profile photo of DrProfessor
    DrProfessor Male 18-29
    3894 posts
    August 31, 2013 at 2:01 pm
    Link: 7 MIsused Science Terms - ``It`s just a theory.`` -- Please jump off the highest bridge you can find. Thanks.
  2. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32825 posts
    August 31, 2013 at 4:35 pm
    Perhaps change the word "theory" with "rule"?
    `Rule` sounds stronger, more definite!

    The main difference (mistake) seems to be: The Public thinks a "theory" is an `unproven idea`. But in science it HAS PROOF, just not enough to be a "Law" yet!

    Hypothesis, Model & etc are the UN-proven ones.

    The LAW of gravity.
    The RULE of evolution
    The HYPOTHESIS of creationism.
    The `AGW` MODEL.
    See?

  3. Profile photo of CoffeeCakes
    CoffeeCakes Male 30-39
    106 posts
    August 31, 2013 at 5:41 pm
    the idea of creationism.
  4. Profile photo of kree_
    kree_ Male 30-39
    1032 posts
    August 31, 2013 at 5:54 pm
    @kittykittykittykittykitty

    Not quite, a law refers to a mathmatical description of nature. If you can write an equation its a law. Theory, is a explanation of nature.
  5. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    August 31, 2013 at 6:15 pm

  6. Profile photo of RoboPatton
    RoboPatton Male 30-39
    2424 posts
    August 31, 2013 at 7:30 pm
    Ugh...
  7. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32825 posts
    August 31, 2013 at 8:57 pm
    @kree_kree_KREE_kree_ (lolz! Very nice!)

    I`m talking about the PRECIEVED hierarchy in the minds of the non-scientist or nerd.

    A `law` is generally set in stone. it`s difficult to change them once they`re decided upon.

    A `theory` or `rule` is usually correct, but could be disproven, yes?

    A `hypothesis` is an idea that hasn`t "passed the bar" of proof to be called a theory (or a law either).

    A model is a skinny white woman...

    My main point is: One "follows the rules" but a theory sounds a lot like a hypothesis to the common folks. Like it`s "unproven" somehow...
  8. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    August 31, 2013 at 9:33 pm
    What a putrid, steaming pile of horse$#!+!

    Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) doesn`t even meet the minimum standards to qualify as a theory. It`s a bad religion.

    1. Start with your conclusion. (You can`t do this in real science, but it`s the foundation of AGW.)

    2. Cherry-pick the data and report only that which supports your conclusion.

    3. When you don`t have enough data, fabricate it.

    4. Ignore or even hide data that contradicts your conclusion, e.g., "hide the decline."

    5. Denounce, slander, name-call, shun, ostracize, and excommunicate anyone who dares to present data that contradicts your conclusion.

    The last is by far the most pernicious. Anyone who doesn`t kneel at the alter of AGW cannot graduate, they cannot get a post doc position, they cannot get hired, they cannot get funding, they cannot get published, they cannot get promoted, and they cannot get tenure. They`re treated as heretics and blasphemers.
  9. Profile photo of Wibble4321
    Wibble4321 Male 40-49
    414 posts
    September 1, 2013 at 1:10 am
    Unfortunately I think the scientists need to consult with a dictionary before complaining about misappropriation of terminology.

    A look at the original roots of these words will show that science has appropriated them with additional process and restriction.

    For example, theory simply means contemplate, speculate.

    hypothesis - base, basis of an argument, supposition

    Maybe science needs to understand the duality and contextual use of language better (and I consider myself far more of a scientist than a linguist).
  10. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    September 1, 2013 at 4:57 am
    5Cats, to be sure, a hypothesis is not an idea that hasn`t passed the bar of proof. I`m not trying to criticize, it`s just that this is super important. A hypothesis is a testable explanation for a phenomenon. The "testable" part is what`s important because the test criterion are what`s important about a hypothesis--one might suggest a dozen or more hypotheses for a given phenomenon, changing only the slightest conditions in each one. Sure, one imagines that the general idea behind the formulation of the hypothesis is correct, but, one needn`t be "certain" of the correctness to test it. And the reason scientists say that it`s not an "educated guess" is because of the requirement that the hypothesis be testable.

    Creationism, therefore, is not, and can never be, a hypothesis. It is a story. It`s faith. And that`s not good or bad, and I make no judgment, but it`s not a hypothesis.

  11. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    September 1, 2013 at 4:59 am
    "They`re treated as heretics and blasphemers."

    Well, if the shoe fits, OldOllie... That`s how antivaxers are treated, too, by the way. Dangerous people *should* be treated that way.
  12. Profile photo of Reignblazer
    Reignblazer Male 18-29
    2334 posts
    September 1, 2013 at 5:10 am
    Argue semantics we must!
  13. Profile photo of kree_
    kree_ Male 30-39
    1032 posts
    September 1, 2013 at 5:50 am
    @sqrt(25)cats
    Laws get proven wrong. Best example is newtons laws of motion. They did not account for things moving near the speed of light. Although most people would say those weren`t wrong simply incomplete.

    The same goes with theories, when they get changed, or expanded, it`s not because they were incorrect, they simply weren`t complete. New data or understanding has come forth. Over all though because theories are much more expansive, they are less likely to be incorrect than a law.
  14. Profile photo of kree_
    kree_ Male 30-39
    1032 posts
    September 1, 2013 at 5:54 am
    @Smaggie my boy,

    Creationism is testable. The creationists claim you can also talk to the creator. So we simply need to try communicating. IF there is no response there is a high possibility that creationism is wrong, but we cannot rule out that the creator is deaf, or angry at us and ignoring us. There is also the possibility that he got bored and went elsewhere in the universe, so we might need to test out how to leave voicemails and wait a few eons for his return.

    Then there is the "universe is actually a computer simulation idea" being tested in england. Does a computer programer count as a creator?
  15. Profile photo of Thonious
    Thonious Male 40-49
    987 posts
    September 1, 2013 at 6:55 am
    Equivocation: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; a logical fallacy based on the use of the same term with two different meanings.
  16. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    September 1, 2013 at 7:53 am
    Thonious:
    "Equivocation: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; a logical fallacy based on the use of the same term with two different meanings."
    ----------
    This has nothing to do with ambiguity. This has to do with following a strict set of rules to properly define something`s state. It`s the misinterpretation of those states that leads to the public`s misunderstanding. By arguing against any of this, you really only prove that point.
  17. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32825 posts
    September 1, 2013 at 8:39 pm
    @kree_ "Squirt 25 cats"? That sounds... naughty!
    Oh! Square Root (25) Cats! Lolz!

    (It took me a second, with a puzzled expression!)

    I did allow for "Laws" to change in my mention, eh?

    THAT is one of the reasons "laymen" view science as "less than 100% correct" because even the highest order of understanding can be altered! It MIGHT be wrong!
    Or "not fully understood" which is essentially the same darn thing!

    @SmagBoy1: Any IDIOT can formulate a hypothesis! I do it ALL the time on IAB!! :-)
  18. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    September 1, 2013 at 9:37 pm
    SmagBoy1, the difference is that the efficacy of vaccinations is falsifiable; AGW is not.
  19. Profile photo of kree_
    kree_ Male 30-39
    1032 posts
    September 2, 2013 at 10:09 am
    @5cats,

    True, I just wanted to clarify that theories are just as well established as laws.

    @oldie
    I disagrer. The science of climate change is well established. The theory is solid. The only thing that is stil debated is the effects. Yes you can say rising water, or lowered water, rising temp, lowered temp, death/destruction, business as usual. This is all fine, but to say the underlining science is wrong shows a blatant lack of knowledge. It is the equivalent of saying 1+1=3

    That being said, the scientific consensus could be wrong, but no one comes forth with new facts. They simply make the accusation and assume the science is wrong, starting with a conclusion as you accused climate change of doing.
  20. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32825 posts
    September 2, 2013 at 10:16 am
    @OldOllie: AGW can be falsified... in 100 years!
    MAYBE! (lolz!)

    Of course by then it might also be proven that the "save the climate" measures actually made it WORSE, and would be far to late to do anything about either situation, eh?
  21. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32825 posts
    September 2, 2013 at 10:24 am
    @kree_ Yes, they can be. They can also be baloney too! Which causes the `laymen` confusion, eh?

    In order to "verify" the science of AGW? It`s PERFECTLY VALID to start with a hypothesis that "AGW is wrong BECAUSE..." and go on to either prove or disprove THAT. It`s normal science!

    We `skeptics` point to basic, obvious flaws in the "AGW Science" and say: how do you guys explain that?

    The answer is always: DENIER! HERATIC! BURN THE WITCH!

    Flaws like: "Hide The Decline" which means to STOP using tree ring data after the 50`s when it no longer supports the AGW model (and makes the "hockey stick" go flat)?? THAT is NOT `science`.

    Correct? There`s 100s more examples too!
  22. Profile photo of kree_
    kree_ Male 30-39
    1032 posts
    September 2, 2013 at 1:09 pm
    Hide the decline was blown out of porportion and is only a rally call because its a good sound bite. Also it has been argued about for 20 years, so you cant claim decliners get labelled heretic.

    You cannot start with a hypothesis of xyorz is wrong because. You begin with an observation. Then you come up with hypothesi. In this case "Tree ring growth does not corelate to temperature change in high altitude forests, because xyorz" global warming is wrong would indeed be a viable xyorz, although a little broad. Also if you only put forth one hypothesis that is reason enough to be criticized. So lets come up with a second hypothesis and then we will proceed to the next step.

    Fair warnings though, if you post a strawman hypothesis I will say "neaner neaner 5cats cant into science."
  23. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    September 2, 2013 at 8:26 pm
    @kree The science of climate change is well established.
    So? The divinity of Christ is "well established" in the Catholic church? Does that make it a fact? "Scientific consensus" ain`t worth Jack $#!+ when they falsify data, ignore and hide conflicting data, and ostracize anyone who disagrees with their orthodoxy.

    No one is arguing against the phenomenon of "climate change." The climate of the earth has been changing for 6 billion years. The question is, can we stop it by letting liberals boss us around and piss away $100 trillion of our money? I think not. You`re free to disagree with me. The problem is you don`t think I should be free to disagree with you.
  24. Profile photo of bordo
    bordo Male 50-59
    907 posts
    September 2, 2013 at 9:42 pm
    He wants to shoe horn his hate for doubters of climate change into every example he can. What a butt brain.
  25. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    September 2, 2013 at 11:17 pm
    Hide the decline was blown out of porportion
    How was incontrovertible proof of blatant scientific fraud blown out of proportion? Out of proportion to WHAT?
  26. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    September 3, 2013 at 3:26 am
    @OldOllie

    ""Scientific consensus" ain`t worth Jack $#!+ when they falsify data, ignore and hide conflicting data, and ostracize anyone who disagrees with their orthodoxy."

    The whole point of science is that anyone can replicate the thinking/findings. Given the time/money/education anyhow.

    You or I can read what others have reported, read through their methods, and repeat their experiments. Anyone can, and they do, see through the bullpoo where it is.

    Yes, scientists lie and cheat. All humans do. But the scientific method is equipped to weed those liars out. Peer review doesn`t just mean some mythical clan of "scientists" are allowed to comment on it. Anyone can.

    Not many of us are capable...it`s complex stuff. But you *can* if you you are.
  27. Profile photo of kree_
    kree_ Male 30-39
    1032 posts
    September 3, 2013 at 5:45 am
    It was blown out of proportion because, 1. we still use tree ring data post 1950s. 2. it wasn`t fraud 3. it did not hide a decline in temperature 4. has been publicly debated for 15 years before the "scandal" broke

    You are incorrect, you are allowed to disagree with me. What you are not allowed to do is make blatant false statements and expect not to be called out on them. Here is an example "I don`t believe in global warming" would be fine. "I believe that the lack of correlation between high latitute forest growth and temperature increase is a sign that global warming is false" would be even better. " "those scientists falsified the data." is not ok. "I recreated the experiments, and my data does not correlate with their data" would be better. or "those scientists admitted to falsifying data, and later apologized." would be good too. But proofless accusations shall not stand.
  28. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32825 posts
    September 3, 2013 at 6:57 pm
    You or I can read what others have reported, read through their methods, and repeat their experiments.
    @Musuko42: FALSE! The original AGW Crew HID THEIR DATA for several years! Only after the "big leaks" did ANY of it come out.
    NO ONE who "plugged in" their original data got a "hockey stick" graph. NOT ONCE.

    1. we still use tree ring data post 1950s.
    @kree_ That`s the WHOLE POINT! the original AGW crew did NOT use it! They left it OUT because it DID `lower the temps` on their precious "hockey stick"!
    Now it`s also true that it`s "under debate" since it SEEMS odd. But that`s NO EXCUSE to falsify their data.

    "3. it did not hide a decline in temperature"
    Um, yes it does? I`ve seen the charts and LO! the temps (according to tree rings) go DOWN! Which is NOT what`s being measured, which IS INDEED odd... but still valid DATA.
  29. Profile photo of kree_
    kree_ Male 30-39
    1032 posts
    September 3, 2013 at 7:50 pm
    @CAT5
    Incorrect. They left out a sub sample of tree ring data that did not reflect the majority of tree ring data. It did not hide temp change as tree ring data was being shown as correlating to temp not being used to prove temp (for the last few hundred years, tree ring data is being used as of many indicators of prehistoric temperatures.)

    There are plenty of other tree samples that have bern marked as unusable for a variety of reasons. Petrified forests in modern day deserts are not used in their later years due to drought. Uunderwater trees
  30. Profile photo of kree_
    kree_ Male 30-39
    1032 posts
    September 3, 2013 at 7:56 pm
    Whoops, hit reply by accident. I blame my phone.

    Underwater trees are only used pre submersion. Etc.

    High latitude trees diverge from the othe 90% of data collected. They are an obvious anomaly. Unlike other bad data sources though, we havent figured out why they diverge. Until we can account for that the data is unusable.

    The decline does not refer to temperature. It refers to tree growth. Just like a forest burned by wildfires would stop growing and correlating, these trees effect the average.
  31. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    September 3, 2013 at 10:14 pm
    You or I can read what others have reported
    ...except that scientists who disagree with the global warming orthodoxy cannot get funding for their research or get their papers published. It`s a Catch 22.

    You have about as much chance of publishing a paper that disproves AGW as you would have getting an article that disproves the divinity of Christ published in a Catholic diocese newspaper. Actually, you would have EXACTLY the same chance: none.
  32. Profile photo of kree_
    kree_ Male 30-39
    1032 posts
    September 4, 2013 at 5:47 am
    @ollie

    The experiments have been done so many time over the last 150 years, textbooks no longer cite them. They have become science fact. which of course makes it a tad bit hard to talk to you about them. the two most basic statements are "atmospheric greenhouse gases effect climate" and " Humans effect atmospheric greenhouse gas levels" We spent the 30s and 40s debating those. But all the studies were reproduced numerous times and almost no one involved disagreed.

Leave a Reply