• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Four Modern “Scientific” Myths

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
1. Creationism, the position which even some scientists defend, which holds that the universe was created by God only 6000 years ago, and that a flood covered the whole Earth. It’s good to remember all the flood myths in the world, and that during the last glacial maximum or Ice Age which peaked around 17,000 years ago, sea level was 400’ lower than today. Civilizations, whatever form they took, would have been, as always, along those lower coastlines of warmer climes generally closer to the equator. The Persian Gulf would have been an actual, fertile, Garden of Eden, watered by the combined Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Those places would have been inundated by the melting of the glacial ice, sometimes catastrophically. Due to its expense and difficulty, marine archaeology is still in its infancy.
Re: Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization, Graham Hancock (2002)


2. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics held that observation or the act of measurement affects a physical system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wave function collapse. This idea predominated the scientific community for much of the 20th century, and still has its adherents today. Einstein dismissed it, some would say ridiculed it, by asking, “Do you really believe I think the Moon only exists when I’m looking at it?”


3. The location of the first two Jewish temples was on the so-called Temple Mount in Jerusalem. For the faithful to believe this is one thing, but almost all archaeological (scientific) authorities who specialize in that area, are ideologically invested in disregarding all the biblical and extra-biblical evidence, such as the descriptions of the historian Josephus, that the first temples were just 600 feet to the south of the alleged Temple Mount, in the oldest part of Jerusalem, the City of David. The current alleged Temple Mount has to be the Fortress Antonia, which was left standing when the Romans captured Jerusalem in 70 CE to house the Roman 10th Legion for 200 years afterwards—while the City of David, with the Temple, was completely demolished at that time.
Re: The Jerusalem Temple Mount Myth, Marilyn Sams (2015)


4. Global Warming (conveniently renamed to “Climate Change” due to an inconvenient pause in said warming).


All the following incidents indicate willful manipulation of data to support the idea of global warming.


The IPCC Climategate scandal in 2009 which released 1000 emails and other documents, which became known as Climategate:
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia


Then in 2011 another 5000 IPCC emails were released, commonly referred to as Climategate 2:
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate


And again in 2017, whistleblower Dr. John Bates of NOAA, exposed similar manipulation at NOAA. This has also been termed Climategate 2, but it’s better to recognize it as Climategate 2.1:
A Top Climate Scientist Blows the Whistle on Shoddy Climate Science
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
And yet here you are using an extremely reliable, extraordinarily complex internet, and probably every day using a GPS-reliant cell phone that would not work at all if not for Einstein.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
And yet here you are using an extremely reliable, extraordinarily complex internet, and probably every day using a GPS-reliant cell phone that would not work at all if not for Einstein.

Huh?

That wasn't a criticism of Einstein, but quoting Einstein's sarcastic criticism of the Copenhagen Interpretation.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
I agree that creation is a myth.
Numbers 2 and 3 are such a jumbled word salad I have no idea what you are trying to say and I do not know enough about four to comment.
 
4. Global Warming (conveniently renamed to “Climate Change” due to an inconvenient pause in said warming).

When did this pause happen?

Also both terms have been in use for 40+ years, the 'convenient change' merely reflects most common popular usage. Interestingly, a while back, Republicans were told to use climate change exclusively because the term global warming caused more people to see it as being important issue. The more neutral climate change had less of an emotional impact.

Presenting gw/cc as some kind of devious cover up by scientists can be added to your list of myths.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
You were going so well in the first two. 3 is irrelevant either way. 4 is just misguided.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
And yet here you are using an extremely reliable, extraordinarily complex internet, and probably every day using a GPS-reliant cell phone that would not work at all if not for Einstein.
Awe icehorce He is Don Quixote after all it makes total sense to rail at selective reasoning in a selective manner!!! I love this forum it's like being in Alice in wonderland.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
1. Creationism, the position which even some scientists defend, which holds that the universe was created by God only 6000 years ago, and that a flood covered the whole Earth. It’s good to remember all the flood myths in the world, and that during the last glacial maximum or Ice Age which peaked around 17,000 years ago, sea level was 400’ lower than today. Civilizations, whatever form they took, would have been, as always, along those lower coastlines of warmer climes generally closer to the equator. The Persian Gulf would have been an actual, fertile, Garden of Eden, watered by the combined Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Those places would have been inundated by the melting of the glacial ice, sometimes catastrophically. Due to its expense and difficulty, marine archaeology is still in its infancy.
Re: Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization, Graham Hancock (2002)


2. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics held that observation or the act of measurement affects a physical system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wave function collapse. This idea predominated the scientific community for much of the 20th century, and still has its adherents today. Einstein dismissed it, some would say ridiculed it, by asking, “Do you really believe I think the Moon only exists when I’m looking at it?”


3. The location of the first two Jewish temples was on the so-called Temple Mount in Jerusalem. For the faithful to believe this is one thing, but almost all archaeological (scientific) authorities who specialize in that area, are ideologically invested in disregarding all the biblical and extra-biblical evidence, such as the descriptions of the historian Josephus, that the first temples were just 600 feet to the south of the alleged Temple Mount, in the oldest part of Jerusalem, the City of David. The current alleged Temple Mount has to be the Fortress Antonia, which was left standing when the Romans captured Jerusalem in 70 CE to house the Roman 10th Legion for 200 years afterwards—while the City of David, with the Temple, was completely demolished at that time.
Re: The Jerusalem Temple Mount Myth, Marilyn Sams (2015)


4. Global Warming (conveniently renamed to “Climate Change” due to an inconvenient pause in said warming).


All the following incidents indicate willful manipulation of data to support the idea of global warming.


The IPCC Climategate scandal in 2009 which released 1000 emails and other documents, which became known as Climategate:
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia


Then in 2011 another 5000 IPCC emails were released, commonly referred to as Climategate 2:
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate


And again in 2017, whistleblower Dr. John Bates of NOAA, exposed similar manipulation at NOAA. This has also been termed Climategate 2, but it’s better to recognize it as Climategate 2.1:
A Top Climate Scientist Blows the Whistle on Shoddy Climate Science
Can you please explain when number 2 was debunked and which interpretation is the prevailing one?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
2016 was the hottest year on record, and you consider that a "myth", ridiculous.
I don't think a single year is anything but a data point in a larger picture.
But this larger picture does show general warming, particularly nearer the N Pole..

There are myths about GW though.
- I recently heard a scientist interviewed on NPR claim that GW would end human life.
This is absurd & utterly unsupported histrionics.
- The claim that it's irreversible is also wrong (as demonstrated by geological history).
But were the claim limited to a particular time frame, it could be supported.
 
Last edited:

idav

Being
Premium Member
1. Creationism, the position which even some scientists defend, which holds that the universe was created by God only 6000 years ago, and that a flood covered the whole Earth. It’s good to remember all the flood myths in the world, and that during the last glacial maximum or Ice Age which peaked around 17,000 years ago, sea level was 400’ lower than today. Civilizations, whatever form they took, would have been, as always, along those lower coastlines of warmer climes generally closer to the equator. The Persian Gulf would have been an actual, fertile, Garden of Eden, watered by the combined Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Those places would have been inundated by the melting of the glacial ice, sometimes catastrophically. Due to its expense and difficulty, marine archaeology is still in its infancy.
Re: Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization, Graham Hancock (2002)


2. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics held that observation or the act of measurement affects a physical system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wave function collapse. This idea predominated the scientific community for much of the 20th century, and still has its adherents today. Einstein dismissed it, some would say ridiculed it, by asking, “Do you really believe I think the Moon only exists when I’m looking at it?”


3. The location of the first two Jewish temples was on the so-called Temple Mount in Jerusalem. For the faithful to believe this is one thing, but almost all archaeological (scientific) authorities who specialize in that area, are ideologically invested in disregarding all the biblical and extra-biblical evidence, such as the descriptions of the historian Josephus, that the first temples were just 600 feet to the south of the alleged Temple Mount, in the oldest part of Jerusalem, the City of David. The current alleged Temple Mount has to be the Fortress Antonia, which was left standing when the Romans captured Jerusalem in 70 CE to house the Roman 10th Legion for 200 years afterwards—while the City of David, with the Temple, was completely demolished at that time.
Re: The Jerusalem Temple Mount Myth, Marilyn Sams (2015)


4. Global Warming (conveniently renamed to “Climate Change” due to an inconvenient pause in said warming).


All the following incidents indicate willful manipulation of data to support the idea of global warming.


The IPCC Climategate scandal in 2009 which released 1000 emails and other documents, which became known as Climategate:
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia


Then in 2011 another 5000 IPCC emails were released, commonly referred to as Climategate 2:
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate


And again in 2017, whistleblower Dr. John Bates of NOAA, exposed similar manipulation at NOAA. This has also been termed Climategate 2, but it’s better to recognize it as Climategate 2.1:
A Top Climate Scientist Blows the Whistle on Shoddy Climate Science
From the email controversy wiki you posted.
The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[17]
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
4. Global Warming (conveniently renamed to “Climate Change” due to an inconvenient pause in said warming).


All the following incidents indicate willful manipulation of data to support the idea of global warming.
I looked them over and found deficiencies.

The IPCC Climategate scandal in 2009 which released 1000 emails and other documents, which became known as Climategate:
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia
Wikipedia is ok for anything non-controversial. This is a controversial subject. Anybody can write or edit Wikipedia articles.

Then in 2011 another 5000 IPCC emails were released, commonly referred to as Climategate 2:
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate
The article in Forbes is by James Taylor who founded his own stupid three member foundation in March last year see its registration info and is a keynote speaker for coal industry events, such as the Reno Energy "Forum" see here which is sponsored by some coal lobby called the Coalition of Energy Users see here. The man is covered in soot and marketing gimmicks, but he's nobody to trust on a subject he calls 'Climate Gate'. He paints his 'Foundation' credentials all over as if its an accomplishment that qualifies him as a professor of facts. It doesn't, and Forbes -- hello? They really ought to rely upon journalists for journalism.

And again in 2017, whistleblower Dr. John Bates of NOAA, exposed similar manipulation at NOAA. This has also been termed Climategate 2, but it’s better to recognize it as Climategate 2.1:
A Top Climate Scientist Blows the Whistle on Shoddy Climate Science
Worst of all, this 'Article' is merely a reference to a Daily Mail comment, a comment on a site focused on entertainment news and info about aliens and lizard men.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
4. Global Warming (conveniently renamed to “Climate Change” due to an inconvenient pause in said warming).
It was renamed to respond to idiots who would say things like "I wouldn't mind a bit of global warming! I never liked shoveling snow anyway! (Har har har)" to get across the idea that a global average temperature rise will create serious problems like drought, sea level rise, more frequent extreme weather, etc.

Unfortunately, they didn't take into account the idiots who would say things like "oh - it's not 'global warming' any more? Guess you changed your mind about the world getting hotter! (Har har har)"

The world is still getting hotter and it's still being caused by humans. It's just that what causes the most harm to you and the things you care about may be something caused by global warming and not the warmer global average temperature directly.
 
Last edited:

Yerda

Veteran Member
All the following incidents indicate willful manipulation of data to support the idea of global warming.

The IPCC Climategate scandal in 2009 which released 1000 emails and other documents, which became known as Climategate:
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia
Just fyi, the IPCC and the CRU at East Anglia uni aren't the same thing.

Did you read the link you provided? It states:

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.


ThePainefulTruth said:
Then in 2011 another 5000 IPCC emails were released, commonly referred to as Climategate 2:
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate
Like the previous example this is an attempt to undermine the scientists by quote mining their hacked emails and using little snippets out of context.

If you have anything compelling from either of these two cases please present it.

ThePainefulTruth said:
And again in 2017, whistleblower Dr. John Bates of NOAA, exposed similar manipulation at NOAA. This has also been termed Climategate 2, but it’s better to recognize it as Climategate 2.1:
A Top Climate Scientist Blows the Whistle on Shoddy Climate Science
Oddly enough, when questioned John Bates said,

"no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."

"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."

Major global warming study again questioned, again defended: HighBeam News


If you want to convince people we need to snap an entire branch from the tree of science you need to do better. We need to see the studies that the Earth isn't warming, that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, or that the models being used are not suitable.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
2. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics held that observation or the act of measurement affects a physical system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wave function collapse. This idea predominated the scientific community for much of the 20th century, and still has its adherents today. Einstein dismissed it, some would say ridiculed it, by asking, “Do you really believe I think the Moon only exists when I’m looking at it?”
It's difficult to pin down the Copenhagen Interpretation because it has been represented in several different ways. But the following from the Wikipedia is good enough, as far as I know:

  1. A wave function represents the state of the system. It encapsulates everything that can be known about that system before an observation; there are no additional "hidden parameters".[11] The wavefunction evolves smoothly in time while isolated from other systems.


  2. The properties of the system are subject to a principle of incompatibility. Certain properties cannot be jointly defined for the same system at the same time. The incompatibility is expressed quantitatively by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. For example, if a particle at a particular instant has a definite location, it is meaningless to speak of its momentum at that instant.

  3. During an observation, the system must interact with a laboratory device. When that device makes a measurement, the wave function of the systems is said to collapse, or irreversibly reduce to an eigenstate of the observable that is registered.[12]

  4. The results provided by measuring devices are essentially classical, and should be described in ordinary language. This was particularly emphasized by Bohr, and was accepted by Heisenberg.[13]

  5. The description given by the wave function is probabilistic. This principle is called the Born rule, after Max Born.

  6. The wave function expresses a necessary and fundamental wave–particle duality. This should be reflected in ordinary language accounts of experiments. An experiment can show particle-like properties, or wave-like properties, according to the complementarity principle of Niels Bohr.[14]

  7. The inner workings of atomic and subatomic processes are necessarily and essentially inaccessible to direct observation, because the act of observing them would greatly affect them.

  8. When quantum numbers are large, they refer to properties which closely match those of the classical description. This is the correspondence principle of Bohr and Heisenberg.
Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia

Note that I struck through the second sentence of #3 (which leaves the first sentence rather useless). Collapse of the wavefunction isn't an effect of a “system interacting with a laboratory device,” as Renninger's Negative Result gedankenexperiment demonstrates.

In any case, you're saying the above interpretation is wrong? What do you say is the correct interpretation of QM?
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
This question is for anyone.
Not really sure there is a correct interpretation, interpretations are from the same facts. For QM it's like debating whether the illusionist uses doors or goes through walls.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
What was the point of your post?

That's obvious. But if you have any serious questions, please step up to the plate.

I agree that creation is a myth.
Numbers 2 and 3 are such a jumbled word salad I have no idea what you are trying to say and I do not know enough about four to comment.

I reviewed 2 & 3 and they may perfect sense. And at least you have the honesty to admit when you don't know something. That puts you in the top 2%.

When did this pause happen?

Also both terms have been in use for 40+ years, the 'convenient change' merely reflects most common popular usage. Interestingly, a while back, Republicans were told to use climate change exclusively because the term global warming caused more people to see it as being important issue. The more neutral climate change had less of an emotional impact.

But the timing was suspiciously aligned with the temperature leveling off. It was also a reflection of embarrassment of the media reporting heat waves and cold snaps as global warming and the next ice age in the summer and winter every year.

[/quote]Presenting gw/cc as some kind of devious cover up by scientists can be added to your list of myths.[/QUOTE]

The IPCC and NOAA are the smoking guns, deal with it.

2016 was the hottest year on record, and you consider that a "myth", ridiculous.

They fiddle with the other stats, why not the temperatures--the Pause was getting embarrassing after all, but the ice caps kept growing, especially Antarctica. And I see you ignore, along with all the other libs, the aforementioned IPCC & NOAA smoking guns. I know, facts are irrelevant.

You were going so well in the first two. 3 is irrelevant either way. 4 is just misguided.

How is exposing their data manipulations misguided? Any unfounded accusation is always easy to make if the media has your back. In fact, like the Hillary campaign, none of the emails have been denied. As for number 3, tell me Jerusalem isn't a hot spot which could use a dose of reality, and maybe even a way out. Israel IS eventually going to build another Temple. Where would be better, the alleged Temple Mount, or the jumble that is what's left of the City of David. In any case, the real issue is the worldwide lack of scholastic integrity all four issues exemplifies.

Can you please explain when number 2 was debunked and which interpretation is the prevailing one?

It started with Einstein and his quote, and it's been flagging since to the point that it is no longer considered relevant for all but a few bitter clingers. It you're truly interested, the reference I posted is a fascinating read. She explains the ascendant interpretation, the Transactional Interpretation, better than its originator or than John Gribbin did in Schrodinger's Kittens, with one simple change summed up as: Quantum transactions don't occur forward and backward in time, the occur in a timeless environment which she calls, appropriately enough, "Quantumland".

From the email controversy wiki you posted:
The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[17]

I posted the Wiki-link for the references to the scandals in question. But as we all know, Wikipedia is open source to which any tech savvy soul can post their opinion, no matter how wrong it might be. And as we all SHOULD know, science isn't determined by committee or consensus. As Gandhi put it, the Truth is a majority of one--and as Mark Twain put it, a lie makes it half-way around the world before the Truth even gets is shoes on..
 
Top