Science does indeed change. Thats actually in the definition. Its why its better than dogma.
i have been getting into arguments about autism. See when i was kid, i did a program where me and other church youth worked with disabled kids. My assigned kid was autistic and the challenge was huge. The kid had no verbal skill and making any connection was hard. My mom retired as the head of the Houston Mental Health and Retardation foundation in the early 2000s. Now retardation is no longer used and autism is on a scale. From my personal experience that makes no sense. How can someone that can function in society and have a conversation be anything like the kid i worked with.
But the change means more people are getting help. Retard wasnt changed just because of the stigma, they no longer use IQ to figure out diagnosis.
Yes science is always changing, hopefully we are getting more knowledgeable. Now show me examples of where science took us backward instead of forward
Fun book to read, Isaac’s Storm tells the real story of the meteorologist that had just started working in Galveston before the great 1900 hurricane. its fascinating how wrong they were at the time. of course they did not have satellite technology back then. our progress in science is obvious.
My dentist used a post to try and save my tooth. When placing it he cracked the root. I had reoccurring sinus infections for two years. Every time I would ask him if it was the tooth, he would day no. Endonist said it was cracked and I needed an implant. I well never have a root canal or post again. I would go straight to an implant.
Big science is driven by big govt funding, true or false.
“Derp, follow the money”
everything is driven by money, that’s how the world works.
He’s happy his Viagra got funding though.
If i am doing a govt study on something and dont find anything to support my hypothesis would I likely get any additional funding? So I am likely to skew my findings, so I get more funding correct?
There was plenty of money behind certain things that were contrary to science. They had the funding and still couldn’t make it work.
Oil companies have plenty of reason to make climate change not human related. They don’t argue that anymore. Why?
Tobacco companies tried to argue their products didn’t cause cancer. They don’t fight that anymore. Why?
If you’re still denying that humans are impacting climate change, you’re just leaning on your dogma. There is really no justification except science wasn’t right about some things before so maybe it’s wrong now.
No, you would be exposed by other scientist ,
labeled a fraud, find no more funding, and probably
need a new profession.
Even scientists that work for private oil companies
have accepted global warming is man made, but they
usually say “contributing” to likely blunt legal exposures.
who has more money to lose on the issue that we all know you are talking about (climate change)
Who is talking about climste change, i an just asking questions
Big science is driven by big govt funding, true or false.
Who is talking about climste change, i an just asking questions
Come on now.
Good job Tucker !
There is no science referenced in the article… There is a lot that looks like lack of science with doctors just randomly using it to try to help with something. Science would be having a controlled study that is tested, peer reviewed, and tested again. A lot of “science was wrong” is simply that there wasn’t a real scientific process in the first place or there was a lack of information that led to incorrect results. Blaming science in general makes people look stupid.
Reminds me of something a coach said once that stuck with me, all these people like to say “let’s experiment with…” but in reality they are just throwing sh*t against the wall to see what sticks. That is not an experiment and just like trying to randomly give sugar to see if it helps an ailment, is not science.
This is a fascinating, yet disturbing thread. I do believe we have some “Q” disciples in Coogfans.
No just people that are stem graduates that know that science is not infallable. We are not talking politics here, so not sure of your point, other than if people disagree With your view, you have to label them as extremists.
No one here is disputing this statement.
If folks stop taking their cholesterol, blood pressure & diabetes meds, what do you think will happen? Are these meds placebos, the modern sugar remedy?
BTW, I’m a STEM graduate too.
If you are fighting that man is causing climate change, you are either a extremist or get paid by oil companies
Lol, niether
You think its just nature and man has no effect?
When did we mention climate change in the above statements, lol