Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans

originally posted by: chiefsmom
a reply to: Grimpachi

Once they are in an environment without food, water, or oxygen.

I'm sorry, was there some new development I don't know about? Can humans live without all 3 of those?

I apologize if there was.

Here is the actual quote.

“Our research is very preliminary, but it’s possible that they will become more receptive to facts once they are in an environment without food, water, or oxygen,” he said.

It is a sarcastic inference that the people who are immune to facts have a deficiency somewhere in those areas.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Funny how the article made no mention of any scientific theories that "fact resistant" people ignore facts on, yet you jump into the thread to immediately start spouting off the standard science denialism for your favorite science to deny. Sounds like the article hit a little too close to home for you.

So you believe that AGW is 100% right? No room for any mistake, absolute truth?

And do you believe that such faith is representative a truly scientific mind?

originally posted by: yuppa
A scientist practices his craft religiously,and has faith in his intellect. Sounds religious to me. The Religon of Science is real but they will argue its not even though they do some of the same things. The peers are comparable to the PAPAL system an dall scientist down after are comparable to cardinals,and priest. They also collect donations to their Churchs as well. The scientific holy land is Greece where al modern science came from.

You seem to be misunderstanding the use of the word "faith" in this context.

I have a great deal of "faith" in my abilities, and intellect. I've spent the past 68 years learning that I can in fact rely upon both to provide what I need. But, seriously, is that really "faith" or is it more like knowledge we call "faith"?

Science does not operate on any form of faith. When I state the there is 1 ampere flowing through your 1 ohm of resistance based on our 1 volt power supply...that is not faith...it is science. I can even measure it an prove it to you.

When science states that two massive bodies attract each other, that is not faith; it is gravity.

So..please, let us understand that what science might call "faith" is more probably fact. And, by "fact" I mean something that is provable via repeatable "action"...

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Funny how the article made no mention of any scientific theories that "fact resistant" people ignore facts on, yet you jump into the thread to immediately start spouting off the standard science denialism for your favorite science to deny. Sounds like the article hit a little too close to home for you.

So you believe that AGW is 100% right? No room for any mistake, absolute truth?

This is a red herring. I never made any of those assertions about ANY science, let alone AGW.

And do you believe that such faith is representative a truly scientific mind?

No, because it is ridiculous. No scientist would EVER claim that any theory is 100% proven and has no room for mistakes.

a reply to: tanka418

Breaking news!!!!!!!!!!

They have identified patient zero. Yup it's Daboo 77!!!!!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: gspat

That's why science admits that its models are flawed. Science doesn't predict things with 100% accuracy and never claims to do so. Though, if you cannot show a reason why if all prior predictions show result X, all future predictions will show result Y then there is no reason to assume that X will become Y in the future. And you should therefore just continue to think that X will continue to occur.

Of course I realize this, but wonder why those who create the models don't. Science says that if you test your hypothesis with a model and the results turn out to be wrong, then the hypothesis and the model are wrong. A new hypothesis needs to be made and a corresponding model needs to be developed.

I don't see this happening.

If fact, I see quite the opposite... People still champion the existing hypothesis/models even though the model's results don't reflect real world results.

If you don't follow the tenets of science, are you really doing science?

The other issue I see is that, with respect to climate science at least, data has been lost over time (I'm not talking about data being manipulated to create more data points, because I can see why it's been done). This can't be helpful in creating either a hypothesis or a model to test the real world against.

By the way, are you aware that computers run based on the scientific model of electricity? Do you doubt that tomorrow electricity will continue to behave as it has always done? No, of course not. Tomorrow, you expect to sit down at your computer, turn the monitor on (or however you repower your pc) and continue using it as before, because electricity doesn't just randomly change its properties as time goes forward.

Also yes to this... And a fun fact to add is that computer circuitry is based upon pneumatic/process piping principles! I'm glad they use flowing electrons rather than some other fluid. I don't think all the piping would fit in my living room.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Says you. Because it isn't specifically written that way in the article, now is it?

And there in lies the problem, satirical or not.

Readers perception. Obviously they very greatly.

originally posted by: gspat
Of course I realize this, but wonder why those who create the models don't. Science says that if you test your hypothesis with a model and the results turn out to be wrong, then the hypothesis and the model are wrong. A new hypothesis needs to be made and a corresponding model needs to be developed.

I don't see this happening.

If fact, I see quite the opposite... People still champion the existing hypothesis/models even though the model's results don't reflect real world results.

Are you SURE this is the case and not just the media telling you that it is the case? Have you actually LOOKED at these supposed incorrect models to see how they are incorrect and that they aren't being updated with newer models? Or are you letting some media outlet tell you that is the case?

If you don't follow the tenets of science, are you really doing science?

No, that is called pseudo-science (electric universe, ghost hunting, ufology, etc).

The other issue I see is that, with respect to climate science at least, data has been lost over time (I'm not talking about data being manipulated to create more data points, because I can see why it's been done). This can't be helpful in creating either a hypothesis or a model to test the real world against.

So? Data is lost in all sciences. Look at evolutionary sciences. Scientists are doomed to forever work with an incomplete fossil record because just about all dead organisms decompose to nothing and very few actually fossilize. That doesn't mean that the scientists' conclusions are inherently wrong though.

Also yes to this... And a fun fact to add is that computer circuitry is based upon process piping principles! I'm glad they use flowing electrons rather than some other fluid. I don't think all the piping would fit in my living room.

Fun Fact: The origin of the word "bug" in relation to computer software has to do with actual bugs getting stuck in the tubings of the old room sized, supercomputers of the 60's and 70's.

No real surprise here. This has been going on for over a century. Look how many people believe that the Federal Reserve's ponzi scheme can go on indefinitely, in spite of the obvious math involved. Look how many people believe that there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats, regardless of the facts. Look at how many people believe that money doesn't influence scientific research, even as they watch commercials about pills for weight loss, hair loss, and erectile dysfuncion, but not Alzheimer's or cancer.

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: tanka418

The same scientists rammed the theory of relativity down the publics throats and when has that ever been proven. Verified means conclusively proven. That hasn't happened. If that theory is wrong it means the speed of light isn't limited to C.

Ouch...

One would hope you would at least Google it before posting nonsense in this manners.

en.wikipedia.org...

Actually makes sense, with OPs post and what you are propagating here...

It's funny how so many religious folk claim their religion is fact, while projecting the mentality that science is faith based to the rest of us. What a joke. People like this are the reason why the article was written in the first place, and it's just downright comical when dozens flock to this thread and justify the article completely.

Let's step back for a second and look at this. These science deniers log onto the internet (an invention based on scientific knowledge and testing), using a computer system (product of science), that runs on electricity (harnessed via scientific knowledge), and then use it as a platform to discount science as just faith. Is that not hypocrisy? If you wish to deny science and live with your head buried in the sand, I have no issue with that, just stop using products of science to make your life better. It's like eating a bacon, egg, and cheese sandwich with extra cheese and butter for breakfast every morning and spending your day preaching about how unhealthy it is.

originally posted by: chiefsmom
a reply to: Grimpachi

Says you. Because it isn't specifically written that way in the article, now is it?

And there in lies the problem, satirical or not.

Readers perception. Obviously they very greatly.

They made absolutely no reference to depriving individuals of any of those things. That would be a fact.

There is no question of this being satire you only need to read the page to see that.

Fact: this is written at the bottom of the article.

Get news satire from The Borowitz Report delivered to your inbox.

It is true readers perception does vary greatly as well as cognitive abilities but it is a fact that they made no reference to killing anyone.

sorry double post

a reply to: Grimpachi

See! Right there, I never implied it wasn't satirical, just written word in general.

And as far as I read, it was implied by that sentence. (killing someone by that method)





I actually have no horse in this, not even in whatever issue they are talking about.
But I will argue with you about readers perception all day long if you want.

Once spent a whole weekend doing it. but that was over the bible, so there was more ground to cover.
LOL

originally posted by: Grimpachi
It is true readers perception does vary greatly as well as cognitive abilities but it is a fact that they made no reference to killing anyone.

While most big religions have had followers that collectively killed millions in the name of their god throughout history, yet this guy is complaining about a joke made in satire. There's real history, and then there's complaining about nothing. Christians have run the world for the past 2000 years with an iron fist, and now they are offended because people finally have the right to speak freely about their detrimental effect on society for all those years. Back in the dark ages, they'd throw people like the guy who wrote the article straight to the guillotine. But yeah, poor Christians are SO oppressed today. Get over yourselves. Stop playing the victim card because less people buy what you are selling now.

a reply to: Barcs

First off, wouldn't mom in my name give you the impression I am a female? LOL I am.

Also, not offended by that statement. Just mentioned it.
They would have to do much better than that to actually offend me.


And FYI? I'm not a Christian either.

This satirical OP kind of remind me of joke between William Shatner (Captain Kirk) and Chris Hadfield, Canadian Astronaut who was at the time on ISS few years back:

William Shatner @WilliamShatner 3 Jan 2013

@Cmdr_Hadfield Are you tweeting from space? MBB

Chris Hadfield ‏@Cmdr_Hadfield 3 Jan 2013

@WilliamShatner Yes, Standard Orbit, Captain. And we're detecting signs of life on the surface.

Please note, no mentioning of any signs of intelligent life on planet they orbit on ISS.

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Funny how the article made no mention of any scientific theories that "fact resistant" people ignore facts on, yet you jump into the thread to immediately start spouting off the standard science denialism for your favorite science to deny. Sounds like the article hit a little too close to home for you.

So you believe that AGW is 100% right? No room for any mistake, absolute truth?

And do you believe that such faith is representative a truly scientific mind?

here is what I believe based on the science
1...burning fossil fuel needs oxygen, and emits carbon dioxide
2...plantlife have a limited carbon dioxide intake, (they can only use so much)
3...defoliation through desertification and man-made destruction, is limiting carbon-dioxide consumption by plantlife
4...humans need oxygen, and emit carbon dioxide
5...humans need to cut back on burning fossil fuels and defoliation

if this is wrong, I have not seen it disputed by a reliable source.

originally posted by: chiefsmom
a reply to: Barcs

First off, wouldn't mom in my name give you the impression I am a female?

I don't know, I've been called a mother on more than one occasion.

originally posted by: chiefsmom
a reply to: Barcs

First off, wouldn't mom in my name give you the impression I am a female? LOL I am.

Also, not offended by that statement. Just mentioned it.
They would have to do much better than that to actually offend me.

My mistake. I read the name quickly as chiefsfan, probably because I also post on a football forum.

That's good that you aren't offended. Let me just say that I AM offended by the historic oppression committed against freethinkers and atheists throughout history, so when modern day Christians play the victim card because somebody doesn't agree with their belief system, or makes a joke about it, it makes me sick. There's fake oppression (words alone don't cause physical harm) and then there is REAL oppression (torture and execution for disagreeing with an unproven unsubstantiated worldview). People seem to get this twisted.