Question to the "science is constantly changing" fans

[MormonVideoGame]

after modern physics  began, point number 8. 

Quote

many scientific journal publications the editors had the only say on whether an article will be published or not until after World War II. “Science and The Journal of the American Medical Association did not use outside reviewers until after 1940, “(Spier, 2002). The Lancet did not implement peer-review until 1976 (Benos et al., 2006). After the war and into the fifties and sixties, the specialization of articles increased and so did the competition for journal space. Technological advances (photocopying!) made it easier to distribute extra copies of articles to reviewers.

 

Edited March 12, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

CO2 not a pollutant? Take a deep breath. Now hold it. I'll get back to you later when its time to stop holding your breath.

Oh, come on.  Give me a break.  Chill. 

It's an essential component of our atmosphere: without it plants can't grow.  How can it be a pollutant?  The mere fact that our bodies emit it in respiration does not make it a pollutant, any more than oxygen is a pollutant because plants emit it in photosynthesis.

This was a cheap shot not worthy of your intellect, tss.

[Calm]

Depends on how you define "pollutant", the first or the second usage:

"Word Origin 

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com

noun

1.  something that pollutes. 

2.  any any substance, as certain chemicals or wasteproducts, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose."

"pollutant (pə-l t'nt)   
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water,or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment.Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontainedradioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants. 

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pollutant

Edited March 13, 2017 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

but Warren and probably most Near East scholars are not mathematicians or experts on cognitive biases. Scholars and archaeologists probably don't analyze the evidence with Mathematical Thinking. Do they use probability calculus? 

Bytheway, "If you make it too narrow then science scholarship is never right"  

Just my point exactly, i.e., archeologists regularly employ math in their excavations, from the time they lay out the site with a theodolite, and use random number generators to select which squares in the grid to excavate (scientific sampling), to the time they run seriations of the artifacts they find (looking for statistical patterns to compare with neighboring sites), etc.  Which is why I urge you to take some coursework on such scientific disciplines.  You are completely unfamiliar with analytical archeology.

[MormonVideoGame]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 You are completely unfamiliar with analytical archeology.

Yes you are right about that. So archaeologists deal with probabilities and analyze the evidence with mathematical thinking? What about cognitive biases? 

[MormonVideoGame]

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

oxygen is a pollutant because plants emit it in photosynthesis.

"Every chemical known is both poisonous and safe for consumption, depending on the dose. You can die from drinking too much water, and you can die from breathing too much oxygen. And every person, plant, and animal that's ever lived has had safe levels of plutonium and mercury in their body. Dose is the only characteristic that makes every compound either poisonous or not." - Brian Dunning 

Oxygen concentration can affect how much sunlight reaches the ground.  

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Depends on how you define "pollutant", the first or the second usage:

acidification. So no question that increasing CO2 levels fit in both definitions. 

Edited March 13, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Johnnie Cake]

I find it ironic that Religion claims "Eternal unchanging Doctrines" and yet it is religion that is constantly changing and evolving...even within Mormonism the list of changes is long and varied.  In fact the only thing that is constant within the church is that stay a round long enough and change will happen.  The fun part is that instead of acknowledging that change is part of the religion they claim just the opposite...that it is eternal and unchanging...which is a misdirection technique.

Within my life time alone...I could list dozens of changes that have been embraced by the church, its apologists and many of its members. 

The reason that the scientific method is a superior process to achieving capital "T" truth is that built into the process is the ability to adapt and chance with new evidence.  Religion on the other hand is dogmatic and holds onto its cherished beliefs well past the time that those belief become untenable.  Take for example the belief in a Universal flood...despite this being in any imaginal manner real...religion, including Mormonism continues to teach this falsehood as fact.

This is why religion can not be trusted as a vehicle for the search for "Truth" its too invested in falsehoods that it needs to cling to to promote belief in its self.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[MormonVideoGame]

never mind 

Edited March 13, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[thesometimesaint]

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Oh, come on.  Give me a break.  Chill. 

It's an essential component of our atmosphere: without it plants can't grow.  How can it be a pollutant?  The mere fact that our bodies emit it in respiration does not make it a pollutant, any more than oxygen is a pollutant because plants emit it in photosynthesis.

This was a cheap shot not worthy of your intellect, tss.

Why do think our bodies need to get rid of it? BTW Plants use Oxygen at night.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Why do think our bodies need to get rid of it? BTW Plants use Oxygen at night.

So what they use oxygen at night?  Non-sequitur.

If you insist upon CO2 as a pollutant, I can't stop you.  But the entire plant kingdom's use of it to grow riotously does seem to militate against your opinion.

[thesometimesaint]

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

So what they use oxygen at night?  Non-sequitur.

If you insist upon CO2 as a pollutant, I can't stop you.  But the entire plant kingdom's use of it to grow riotously does seem to militate against your opinion.

I have no idea as to what you mean by that being a non sequitur.  We aren't in the plant Kingdom.

SEE The definition of "pollution" from Encyclopedia Brittanica is:

"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form."

Edited March 13, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

So what they use oxygen at night?  Non-sequitur.

If you insist upon CO2 as a pollutant, I can't stop you.  But the entire plant kingdom's use of it to grow riotously does seem to militate against your opinion.

Since water is definitely necessary for life, would it be a good environmental move to flood the entire earth with water, to the elevation of Mount Everest? 

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Since water is definitely necessary for life, would it be a good environmental move to flood the entire earth with water, to the elevation of Mount Everest? 

Depends on how long we can tread water.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Yes you are right about that. So archaeologists deal with probabilities and analyze the evidence with mathematical thinking? What about cognitive biases? 

The data points and the math speak for themselves.  The only place for cognitive bias (or cognitive dissonance) is in the interpretation of the data, and that is always subject to the review of other archeologists through time.  That is why professional historians say that there are no facts, only interpretation.

[clarkgoble]

21 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Is Evolution too broad? Global Warming too broad? 

I changed the question, see above. If many or even some elements of a theory change doesn't it simply become another theory? There are improvements, but too many contradictions in a theory is not acceptable. New evidence shouldn't contradict the same theory all the time, unless the theory is wrong. 

I think that was my point. It's not at all clear what exactly you're asking.

Global warming is a pretty narrow theory I think in terms of the claim although not the mechanism. Evolution is a pretty broad set of theories. 

But I think I'll drop out of the conversation. If the question is whether major theories are falsified then yes, they are. If the question is whether established theories in mature fields are mostly true, then the answer is yes they are. Not much more to say beyond that. If someone at FAIR said otherwise they are wrong.

Edited March 13, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Kevin Christensen]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I find it ironic that Religion claims "Eternal unchanging Doctrines" and yet it is religion that is constantly changing and evolving...even within Mormonism the list of changes is long and varied.  In fact the only thing that is constant within the church is that stay a round long enough and change will happen.  The fun part is that instead of acknowledging that change is part of the religion they claim just the opposite...that it is eternal and unchanging...which is a misdirection technique.

Within my life time alone...I could list dozens of changes that have been embraced by the church, its apologists and many of its members. 

The reason that the scientific method is a superior process to achieving capital "T" truth is that built into the process is the ability to adapt and chance with new evidence.  Religion on the other hand is dogmatic and holds onto its cherished beliefs well past the time that those belief become untenable.  Take for example the belief in a Universal flood...despite this being in any imaginal manner real...religion, including Mormonism continues to teach this falsehood as fact.

This is why religion can not be trusted as a vehicle for the search for "Truth" its too invested in falsehoods that it needs to cling to to promote belief in its self.

I notice the quotation marks around a capitalized "Religion" claims for "Eternal unchanging doctrines" and the scandalous observation that lower case religion "is constantly changing and evolving."

That does not accord with my own observations about the religion of Mormonism, in which the formal statement in D&C 1 of of "mine authority" and the "authority of my servants" has this:

Quote

these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

 25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

 26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

 27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

 28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

Doesn't that mean in Mormon religion that I ought to expect and embrace changing understanding?  Alma 32, the great chapter on faith, compares the word to a seed, in which spouting roots and branches, that is, obvious changes leading to enlightment of the mind and soul and understanding, is a sign of goodness.  And one notable commentator in the Book of Mormon has a notably narrow definition of what is doctrine, and observes that adopting a larger definition would be like building one's foundation on sand. See 3 Nephi 11:40, where Jesus says:

Quote

And whoso shall declare more or less than this [that is, faith, repentance, baptism, reception of the Holy Ghost], and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

The notion of stasis in thinking strikes me as contrary to foundations of Mormon thought, which, point towards enlargement and growth, a living faith, not a Big Book of What to Think.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

[Johnnie Cake]

12 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I notice the quotation marks around a capitalized "Religion" claims for "Eternal unchanging doctrines" and the scandalous observation that lower case religion "is constantly changing and evolving."

That does not accord with my own observations about the religion of Mormonism, in which the formal statement in D&C 1 of of "mine authority" and the "authority of my servants" has this:

Doesn't that mean in Mormon religion that I ought to expect and embrace changing understanding?  Alma 32, the great chapter on faith, compares the word to a seed, in which spouting roots and branches, that is, obvious changes leading to enlightment of the mind and soul and understanding, is a sign of goodness.  And one notable commentator in the Book of Mormon has a notably narrow definition of what is doctrine, and observes that adopting a larger definition would be like building one's foundation on sand. See 3 Nephi 11:40, where Jesus says:

The notion of stasis in thinking strikes me as contrary to foundations of Mormon thought, which, point towards enlargement and growth, a living faith, not a Big Book of What to Think.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

Thanks Kevin....so when God says that He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow...was God just mistaken?  Or was it the men He called to represent  Him on earth that were mistaken?

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I have no idea as to what you mean by that being a non sequitur.  We aren't in the plant Kingdom.

SEE The definition of "pollution" from Encyclopedia Brittanica is:

"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form."

What does the fact that plants use oxygen at night have to do with the fact that plants emit oxygen in exchange for carbon dioxide during the day have to do with pollution?  That's the non-sequitur.

To a certain extent I don't care how Britannica defines the world "pollutant".  The point I am trying to make is that carbon dioxide is an exchange gas, and part of the normal cycle of living organisms upon the earth.  Calling it a pollutant is senseless.  We emit it in respiration as part of our process of metabolism, and plants consume it as part of their life-cycle in combo with light.  That bit of carbon dioxide you exhaled in the past minute will shortly be taken in by some plant near you, its carbon will be incorporated in its physical structure, and it will exhale oxygen, which you will breathe in, and the cycle continues. 

A pollutant, on the other hand, interferes with that life cycle in some fashion, either chemically because it sabotages your respiration (like carbon monoxide will screw up your oxygen uptake really fast), or physically because too much of it is present and it interferes with normal functioning.  Granted, too much of an exchange gas, for example, can be a problem, and possibly have the effect of being a pollutant in that instance.  It is, for example, not good to be in an environment of 100% oxygen.  Or 100% carbon dioxide.  But all this means is that the components of the biogeochemical cycle are out of balance.  It doesn't translate into being able to rationally call any of the components of that cycle "pollutants."  If you want to call water a pollutant, tss, then go for it, but I have news: it isn't one. 

Calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is nothing more nor less than the usual legalese "term of art" baloney, whereby you can define a tea leaf as a harpoon if you codify it as such in some legislation.

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Since water is definitely necessary for life, would it be a good environmental move to flood the entire earth with water, to the elevation of Mount Everest? 

Yes, and this is the same thing tss is trying to pull.  Go to a ridiculous extreme in order to "prove" a totally bogus point.  Hey, I have an idea!  Since if you ate a thousand carrots at one sitting, the carotene would turn you orange and kill you, therefore carrots should be labelled as deadly poisons in your supermarket's produce aisle.  Do you seriously have no better argument than this? 

Hey, I can take it to another level.  Akin to your own in fact.  Since carbon dioxide is a pollutant, we should attempt to prohibit the emission of it.  We want 0% of it in the atmosphere.  Which would of course kill everything on earth.  We can go quite hog-wild with similar arguments along other themes.  All equally bogus.

Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant.  It is an essential biological exchange gas that nature has a proven capacity to manage, in connection with other chemicals involved in our planet's life cycle.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Stargazer

[Physics Guy]

I figured out why this thread was annoying me so much. Its implicit premise seems to be the authority of science. Contrarians of various stripes, from creationists to climate change deniers, say that science has no authority because it keeps flip-flopping; MormonVideoGame wants to defend science against this charge. I appreciate the sentiment, truly, but as a professional scientist I have to say that I'd rather do without this defence.

The way to defend a scientific conclusion is by explaining the compelling evidence and cogent arguments behind it. Forget the authority of science. Forget whatever science has done for us in the past, or in other subjects. Science is like the Old West gunslinger whose gun is always ready to fight it out, here and now, against anyone. Science don't need no stinking badges. 

If science needed authority, science wouldn't deserve authority.

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

What does the fact that plants use oxygen at night have to do with the fact that plants emit oxygen in exchange for carbon dioxide during the day have to do with pollution?  That's the non-sequitur.

To a certain extent I don't care how Britannica defines the world "pollutant".  The point I am trying to make is that carbon dioxide is an exchange gas, and part of the normal cycle of living organisms upon the earth.  Calling it a pollutant is senseless.  We emit it in respiration as part of our process of metabolism, and plants consume it as part of their life-cycle in combo with light.  That bit of carbon dioxide you exhaled in the past minute will shortly be taken in by some plant near you, its carbon will be incorporated in its physical structure, and it will exhale oxygen, which you will breathe in, and the cycle continues. 

A pollutant, on the other hand, interferes with that life cycle in some fashion, either chemically because it sabotages your respiration (like carbon monoxide will screw up your oxygen uptake really fast), or physically because too much of it is present and it interferes with normal functioning.  Granted, too much of an exchange gas, for example, can be a problem, and possibly have the effect of being a pollutant in that instance.  It is, for example, not good to be in an environment of 100% oxygen.  Or 100% carbon dioxide.  But all this means is that the components of the biogeochemical cycle are out of balance.  It doesn't translate into being able to rationally call any of the components of that cycle "pollutants."  If you want to call water a pollutant, tss, then go for it, but I have news: it isn't one. 

Calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is nothing more nor less than the usual legalese "term of art" baloney, whereby you can define a tea leaf as a harpoon if you codify it as such in some legislation.

The simple fact is that plants store some excess Oxygen for metabolism at night. See  http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2860

CO2 is a persistent gas. It takes about 200 years to break down. SEE https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air

Believe it or not breathing in too much C02 definitely interferes with normal functioning, and that is at nowhere near 100% concentrations. Are you still holding your breath. If not why not?  It isn't just my definition it is a pollutant in the standard definition in dictionaries and encyclopedias. CO2 also traps heat. The more CO2 trapped the hotter it gets. 

SEE https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Physics Guy said:

I figured out why this thread was annoying me so much. Its implicit premise seems to be the authority of science. Contrarians of various stripes, from creationists to climate change deniers, say that science has no authority because it keeps flip-flopping; MormonVideoGame wants to defend science against this charge. I appreciate the sentiment, truly, but as a professional scientist I have to say that I'd rather do without this defence.

The way to defend a scientific conclusion is by explaining the compelling evidence and cogent arguments behind it. Forget the authority of science. Forget whatever science has done for us in the past, or in other subjects. Science is like the Old West gunslinger whose gun is always ready to fight it out, here and now, against anyone. Science don't need no stinking badges. 

If science needed authority, science wouldn't deserve authority.

Love the imagery.

[Kevin Christensen]

15 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Thanks Kevin....so when God says that He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow...was God just mistaken?  Or was it the men He called to represent  Him on earth that were mistaken?

You are welcome. and your problem is taking relative statements with specific contexts as absolutes.  It's a way to create problems ex nihilo.

Just Saying,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park PA

[Gray]

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, and this is the same thing tss is trying to pull.  Go to a ridiculous extreme in order to "prove" a totally bogus point.  Hey, I have an idea!  Since if you ate a thousand carrots at one sitting, the carotene would turn you orange and kill you, therefore carrots should be labelled as deadly poisons in your supermarket's produce aisle.  Do you seriously have no better argument than this? 

Hey, I can take it to another level.  Akin to your own in fact.  Since carbon dioxide is a pollutant, we should attempt to prohibit the emission of it.  We want 0% of it in the atmosphere.  Which would of course kill everything on earth.  We can go quite hog-wild with similar arguments along other themes.  All equally bogus.

Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant.  It is an essential biological exchange gas that nature has a proven capacity to manage, in connection with other chemicals involved in our planet's life cycle.

You're missing the point. We do have an overabundance of CO2, to the point where it's acting like a pollutant. Just like too much water or too much beta carotene.

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

You are welcome. and your problem is taking relative statements with specific contexts as absolutes.  It's a way to create problems ex nihilo.

Just Saying,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park PA

So I should not take God at his word if his words come through man?