Science is Dogma...

[revelarts]

FYI

the spiral arms of galaxies.
Based on gravity and the billions of years ago when these galaxies supposedly formed there should be no spiral arms left.
In only millions of years the spiral arms would have wound up like clock springs and we'd only see disk like masses of stars.
but there they are.

no early galaxies seen.
recently the Hubble telescope looked at a tiny patch of "black" to see as far as possible away and as far back in time as possible.
they expected to find "young" galaxies. but what they found where galaxies that looked "mature". The same as all of the other galaxies we know of. including our own.
So the assumption/prediction was wrong. The observation does not bare out the big bang timeline.


Star formation is unexplained by the big bang and gravity theory of the cosmos.
Gas does not coalesce in space to form stars, as the story we are told goes.
Temperature and pressure would push the gas particles away from each other before gravity could form stars.
population 3 stars -original big bang H He stars- have not been discovered or seen in space.
Stars forming from stars that are already here has more evidence. but the origin of stars in the 1st place has no evidenced based or workable theory via the big bang or accepted physics.

[revelarts]

Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink
"Data or Dogma?"
Dr. Judith Curry is Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Following is her verbal remarks as delivered to last week's US Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on "Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of the Human Impact on Earth’s Climate."

Quote:

Transcript via JudithCurry.com: I thank the Chairman and the Committee for the opportunity to offer testimony today. Prior to 2009, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was the responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument: “Don’t trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of a thousand scientists has said, after years of careful deliberation.” That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus. I starting speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data and supporting information publicly available, being more transparent about how they reached conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties, and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives. The response of my colleagues to this is summed up by the title of a 2010 article in the Scientific American: Climate Heretic Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues. I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink. I had accepted the consensus based on 2nd order evidence: the assertion that a consensus existed. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy. What have I concluded from this assessment? Human caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is ‘dangerous’. The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by humans versus natural climate variability. Research effort and funding has focused on understanding human causes of climate change. However we have been misled in our quest to understand climate change, by not paying sufficient attention to natural causes of climate change, in particular from the sun and from the long-term oscillations in ocean circulations. Why do scientists disagree about climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There is disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models. There is disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance. How then, and why, have climate scientists come to a consensus about a very complex scientific problem that the scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties? Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate that has polarized the scientific community. As a result of my analyses that challenge IPCC conclusions, I have been called a denier by other climate scientists, and most recently by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. My motives have been questioned by Representative Grijalva, in a recent letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech. There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests. In this politicized environment, advocating for CO2 emissions reductions is becoming the default, expected position for climate scientists. This advocacy extends to the professional societies that publish journals and organize conferences. Policy advocacy, combined with understating the uncertainties, risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty and objectivity – without which scientists become regarded as merely another lobbyist group. I would like to thank the committee for raising the issue of data versus dogma in support of improving the integrity of climate science. This concludes my testimony.

[revelarts]

Article about bias in Cosmological research, with suggestions on fixing it.

Cosmological concerns

The picture of the cosmos we now have is one that is dominated by two components, dark matter and dark energy. These account for 95% of the energy content of the universe, yet we do not know what they are. This is an issue for cosmologists and indeed is rightly lauded as one of the most important problems in physics – explanations for the nature of dark energy range from proposals to scrap Einstein’s theory of relativity, the addition of a new fundamental field of nature, or even that we may be seeing the effects of neighbouring parallel universes.

But the dark energy problem is not the one that threatens to undermine cosmological experiments. In cognitive science, confirmation bias is the effect where people tend to unconsciously interpret information in a manner that leads to a selection of data that confirms their current beliefs. For cosmologists, this means the unconscious (or conscious) tuning of results such that the final cosmological interpretation tends to confirm what they already believe. This is particularly pernicious in cosmology because unlike laboratory-based experiments we cannot rerun our experiment many times to investigate statistical anomalies – we only have one universe.


A study that surveyed all the published cosmological literature between the years 1996 and 2008 showed that the statistics of the results were too good to be true. In fact, the statistical spread of the results was not consistent with what would be expected mathematically, which means cosmologists were in agreement with each other – but to a worrying degree. This meant that either results were being tuned somehow to reflect the status-quo, or that there may be some selection effect where only those papers that agreed with the status-quo were being accepted by journals.

Unfortunately the problem is only going to get more difficult to avoid as experiments get better. Ask most cosmologists what they think dark energy will be, and you will grudgingly receive the answer that it is probably a vacuum energy. Ask most cosmologists if they think Einstein’s theory is correct on cosmic scales, and you will grudgingly receive the answer that yes, it probably is correct. If these assertions turn out to be true, how can we convince the wider scientific community, and humanity, that any cosmological finding is not just the result of getting the answer we expected to get?...
....

https://theconversation.com/cosmolog...ay-think-52349

[Gunny]

You just believe anything and anyone that supports your beliefs. Looking at the article the information is all from his lawsuit and are his personal claims. It appears he's just a jaded employee after being fired for who knows what.

Science is not dogmatic. It changes and builds on itself. What a silly assertion. Are you saying that science has not changed and improved over the past 100 years?

Science changes aa the wind blows. I think I already pointed this out. Science is MAN's definition of man and subject to out physical laws. Scientific theory is just bullshit.

[revelarts]

[pete311]

Scientific theory is just bullshit.

Yet our world is filled with it's fruits. You're like a man claiming to never have seen an orange, while peeling one! Hello!

[pete311]

Definitely appears to be a credible source. Your instincts are spot on!

[revelarts]

Pretty good "rough Guide"

SaveSave

[revelarts]

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” is how the great Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman defined science in his article “What is Science?” Feynman emphasized this definition by repeating it in a stand-alone sentence in extra large typeface in his article. (Feynman’s essay is available online, but behind a subscription wall: The Physics Teacher (1969) volume 7, starting page 313.)
Immediately after his definition of science, Feynman wrote: “When someone says, ‘Science teaches such and such,’ he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, ‘Science has shown such and such,’ you should ask, ‘How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?’ It should not be ‘science has shown.’ And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments (but be patient and listen to all the evidence) to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.”

And I say, Amen. Notice that “you” is the average person. You have the right to hear the evidence, and you have the right to judge whether the evidence supports the conclusion. We now use the phrase “scientific consensus,” or “peer review," rather than “science has shown.” By whatever name, the idea is balderdash. Feynman was absolutely correct.

When the attorney general of Virginia sued to force Michael Mann of "hockey stick" fame to provide the raw data he used, and the complete computer program used to analyze the data, so that “you” could decide, the Faculty Senate of the University of Virginia (where Mann was a professor at the time he defended the hockey stick) declared this request -- Feynman’s request -- to be an outrage. You peons, the Faculty Senate decreed, must simply accept the conclusions of any “scientific endeavor that has satisfied peer review standards.” Feynman’s -- and the attorney general’s and my own and other scientists’ -- request for the raw data, so we can “judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at,” would, according to the Faculty Senate, “send a chilling message to scientists … and indeed scholars in any discipline.”



Great piece speaking to the bullshit lies our "leaders" tell us about "science".


https://pjmedia.com/blog/the-differe...inglepage=true

for another thread

[GravyBoat]

I laugh whenever someone says "banned TED Talks". There are no banned TED Talks. There are TED Talks that don't make it on their official website because they stink. Like the one by Sarah Silverman, who has nothing to say anyway, why the hell she was even given the chance.

[revelarts]

I laugh whenever someone says "banned TED Talks". There are no banned TED Talks. There are TED Talks that don't make it on their official website because they stink. Like the one by Sarah Silverman, who has nothing to say anyway, why the hell she was even given the chance.

Dr. Sheldrake ain't Sarah Silverman.
Again we have a case where instead of looking at the evidence for this particular case, assumptions are made about the claim and it's dismissed out of hand.
take a look at the 1st post and the events described to see if it was "banned".
And then look at the content of the talk to see if it "stinks".
But please don't make a knee jerk assessment/pronouncement based on Sarah Silverman and think anyone should take your comment seriously.

[GravyBoat]

Here's an explanation as to why Sheldrake's talk was removed. Ironically, he was found to use a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions and dogmas himself in his TED Talk:

http://blog.ted.com/the-debate-about...eldrakes-talk/

The problem isn't Sheldrake, the problem isn't even with TED, the problem is with people who think TED owes them something. Speech is the reliance upon rhetoric over truth. The goal of TED is obviously some sort of agenda, not open honest discussion.

TED Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_(conference)

[revelarts]

Washington Post
Many scientific studies can’t be replicated. That’s a problem.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...only-36-times/

Maverick researchers have long argued that much of what gets published in elite scientific journals is fundamentally squishy — that the results tell a great story but can’t be reproduced when the experiments are run a second time.
[No, science’s reproducibility problem is not limited to psychology]
Now a volunteer army of fact-checkers has published a new report that affirms that the skepticism was warranted. Over the course of four years, 270 researchers attempted to reproduce the results of 100 experiments that had been published in three prestigious psychology journals.
It was awfully hard. They ultimately concluded that they’d succeeded just 39 times.
The failure rate surprised even the leaders of the project, who had guessed that perhaps half the results wouldn’t be reproduced.

the economist
Problems with scientific research
How science goes wrong
http://www.economist.com/news/leader...nce-goes-wrong

A SIMPLE idea underpins science: “trust, but verify”. Results should always be subject to challenge from experiment. That simple but powerful idea has generated a vast body of knowledge. Since its birth in the 17th century, modern science has changed the world beyond recognition, and overwhelmingly for the better.

But success can breed complacency. Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying—to the detriment of the whole of science, and of humanity.

Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis (see article). A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated. Even that may be optimistic. Last year researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 “landmark” studies in cancer research. Earlier, a group at Bayer, a drug company, managed to repeat just a quarter of 67 similarly important papers. A leading computer scientist frets that three-quarters of papers in his subfield are bunk. In 2000-10 roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later retracted because of mistakes or improprieties.

What a load of rubbish
Even when flawed research does not put people’s lives at risk—and much of it is too far from the market to do so—it squanders money and the efforts of some of the world’s best minds. The opportunity costs of stymied progress are hard to quantify, but they are likely to be vast. And they could be rising.
...

scientific America
Psychology's Ongoing Credibility Crisis
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...bility-crisis/

It’s a tough time to be a young psychologist. This thought keeps occurring to me as we search for a new psychology professor at my school, Stevens Institute of Technology. When I meet candidates, I have to ask about their field’s replication—and credibility—crisis.

I feel as though I’m pressing them on some sordid personal matter, like whether alcoholism runs in their families, but the topic is unavoidable. Last summer, a group called the “Open Science Collaboration” reported in Science that it had replicated fewer than half of 100 studies published in major psychology journals.

The New York Times declared in a front-page story that the report “confirmed the worst fears of scientists who have long worried that [psychology] needed a strong correction. The vetted studies were considered part of the core knowledge by which scientists understand the dynamics of personality, relationships, learning and memory. Therapists and educators rely on such findings to help guide decisions, and the fact that so many of the studies were called into question could sow doubt in the scientific underpinnings of their work.”

The crisis keeps generating headlines. On Friday, a group of four prominent psychologists led by Daniel Gilbert of Harvard claimed in Science that last year’s Open Collaboration study was statistically flawed and did not prove its claim that “the reproducibility of psychological science is low.” “Indeed,” Gilbert and his co-authors state, “the data are consistent with the opposite conclusion, namely, that the reproducibility of psychological science is quite high.”

Nature magazine
http://www.nature.com/news/over-half...y-test-1.18248

Phys.org
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-science-crisis.html

[revelarts]

Is There a Reproducibility Crisis in Science?

By Nature Video on May 28, 2016
http://www.scientificamerican.com/vi...is-in-science/
Nature asked 1,576 scientists for their thoughts on reproducibility. Most agree that there's a 'crisis' and over 70% said they'd tried and failed to reproduce another group's experiments.
This video was reproduced with permission and was first published on May 25, 2016. It is a Nature Video production.

[revelarts]

Question to Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio

the questions interesting alone.

“I am a 24-year-old graduate student in medicinal chemistry/chemical biology. I had been admitted to various different schools and had multiple offers from individual labs upon finishing my undergrad degree. I eventually made the best decision I could have with the information that had been made available at the time and I picked a specific medicinal chemistry/chemical biology lab that seemed to have copious amounts of both money and publications. The reason I chose this lab was that it seemed to be the best place to propel my career forward despite it being 5,000km away from my home, family, and friends.“

“As I was gearing up for the long and grueling five years that were to come, I saw the lab I had chosen for what it really was. The reason this particular lab had so much money and fame was because he was forging his results. And presented these erroneous results to both private and public funding organizations in an attempt to gather more money for himself. Worse still, when graduate students, post docs, or lab techs brought the non-consistent data to his attention, he simply would brush them off and tell them to hide the information.”

“It even got so bad that the professor fired a couple of post-docs and graduate students because he thought they weren't going along with his manipulated data. This professor is more concerned in being the rock-star of the university and the celebrity of the city than he is in being an honest scientist in the pursuit of truth. Sadly, I think this attitude is pervasive in the minds of many of my colleagues. I think this is so because our society has a tendency to view scientists as the new "priests" and science as the new ‘God,’ as you have so precisely pointed out.”

“In short, I have two questions that I was hoping you'd help me answer. Firstly, how can I as an individual up-and-coming scientist help prevent the forging and manipulation of data from happening within the scientific community (particularly in my field: medicinal chemistry/chemical biology). And secondly, how can I play a part in "de-priestifying" scientists and help bring this careerism, which can often end up with a lot of innocent people suffering, to a halt?”