In Science We Trust

[rational experiences]

Science is just a natural human being first...says the human theist.

Reality...a natural human existed first spiritual loving caring theoried for science biggest mistake in human life.

No human is a theory thesis.

Became our destroyer.

He writes theories in science language never whole complete or rational.

As the theory is about getting energy to convert. So he researched not whole forms.

So destruction is always involved.

His brother said no theism was allowed. His brother came to know him getting sacrificed teaches you what another man believed in.

Removal of life biology and it's health it's consciousness its natural balance.

As he looks at state destruction as compared to whole earth life.

So he wants electricity.

He theories first about lightning.

So he says in the theory I want to heal lightning. As it is about changing lightning in natures force.

How he came about claiming plasma from lightning began cells. Just a belief based on his want.

As it's all in his head.

Instead from two irradiated burnt masses he gets electricity.

So he theories atmosphere.

Says bio equals electricity.

I will study you all.

Instead lightning hits the earth as lightning. Always had.

So he does a calculus status about this presence he wants to invent in the atmosphere change by invention. As he took earths mass and changed it manually.

Now he has machines that transmit. He says height mass gas cooling pressure water mass atmospheric basis...is electricity in heavens.

Yet it doesn't even exist. It's just a theory how to invent change by my want first.

Is the theist self who now believes he personally created any type of form by thoughts hence can create electricity from nothing. Because he got told how.

In reality all he owns is one man's biology. Why he says science is a human first. Not actually even talking machine design but changed mass.

Which he is not. All coercion.

As he is God you know. All substances of power just as biology.

So if science observation asked a human how do you take up a whole atmospheric mass inside your body placing you a human in space owning any reaction also?

As earths heavens?

No sense in reality is actually thought in his head and it's all just scientific thesis.

What our holy brothers learnt about his mind as he destroyed biology on earth.

The God theists claim once you were earths mass that converted and became a human. Yet earth mass is still just earths mass.

No comparison. What evil theism means.

When a human is converting dusts that human knows no human life began in converting dusts. Sees it everyday. Converting dusts.

 

[Augustus]

What I am saying is that if non-experts can identify errors in some science reports then it's not as problem of expertise, but of more basic issues.

Earlier you said non-experts can never identify the mistakes of experts that have passed peer-review.

You now accept they can and that 'basic issues' often go unnoticed in peer-review?

So essentially what you are trying to say is that results in science are only as good as the ethics that manage science.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying.

I'm saying the result of the sciences are only as good as the range of currently accepted scientific practices in that field.

There is no real way to demarcate science from "not science", so science can only really be described in terms of the output of people working in fields that we consider the sciences.

Too many people want to make the case that the problems in the sciences are caused by "bad apples" rather than structural and methodological problems and the inherent limitations of human cognition.

The drive for some people to treat science as an idealised normative concept rather than a real world activity is similar to a Christian trying to blame all of the problems in their faith on people not following the real teachings of Christ.

"If we get rid of the bad apples then we will have true religion" or "if we get rid of the bad apples we will have true science" are just childish fantasies.

Human activities will always be flawed so we must start with that assumption and accept it will always be the case.

The solution: offer more funding. Don't conduct work that can't offer reliable results.

They aren't solutions.

From my quote from Nature earlier, Cancer biology studies replicate as 10%.

This isn't due to lack of funding, and you certainly aren't advocating we stop cancer biology research as it "can't offer reliable results".

The problems are due to the limitations of scientific methods that are dependent on the very limited cognitive power of humans.

As we all can see, science works. We look out over a modern city and see a plane flying above and can understand that we are not living in a world similar to the 18th century. We have a high standard of living today because of science. I hope you aren't arguing that science doesn't work, because if you are, what accounts for all we see of the human world today and how it differs greatly from 200 years ago?

Well a lot of what "science" gets the credit for is really the product of technology, tinkering, entrepreneurship, engineering and industry, although obviously I do accept that the sciences have made numerous contributions.

My main point though was that a statement like "science works" is silly because there are many sciences and they don't "work" equally well.

As well as being the best tool we have for investigating the environment we live in, the sciences are also a major sources of false information, moreover false information often viewed as reliable as 'scientific'.

Someone earlier said "we can trust atomic theory because bombs explode"

That doesn't mean we can trust implicit bias tests because bombs explode though, so thinking of science rather than the sciences leads society as a whole to overstate the accuracy of findings in some sciences.

This in turn leads to poor decision making which is something no rational, sceptical, scientific minded person should want.

Do you agree there are many sciences and these have wildly different levels of accuracy and utility? That we have to treat a discipline where most published findings are false/misleading as being very different from one where most are true or at least true enough to be useful?

 

[F1fan]

Earlier you said non-experts can never identify the mistakes of experts that have passed peer-review.

You now accept they can and that 'basic issues' often go unnoticed in peer-review?

I was clear what I meant. A non-expert isn't going to see an error that requires expertise to understand. What the article in reference was saying about lay people was a small number of studies that had simple errors.

None of this suggests science is flawed as a method or process. It does point to problems of funding and pressure for results, as I have noted. Your comment here tries to benefit from your typically vague claims and arguments. You have posted specific issues with results in science but trying to generalize it to science as a whole. That would be an error on your part if you tried to make your argument a scientific study. Our evidence has to point to a specific result.

Question to you: do you think experiments in science can provide valid results?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was clear what I meant. A non-expert isn't going to see an error that requires expertise to understand. What the article in reference was saying about lay people was a small number of studies that had simple errors.

None of this suggests science is flawed as a method or process. It does point to problems of funding and pressure for results, as I have noted. Your comment here tries to benefit from your typically vague claims and arguments. You have posted specific issues with results in science but trying to generalize it to science as a whole. That would be an error on your part if you tried to make your argument a scientific study. Our evidence has to point to a specific result.

Question to you: do you think experiments in science can provide valid results?

Try to fit this quote about science by a scientist into your model of science:
"Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]"

 

[Augustus]

A non-expert isn't going to see an error that requires expertise to understand. What the article in reference was saying about lay people was a small number of studies that had simple errors.

You said simple errors couldn't possibly get past peer-review earlier. Make your mind up...

If a study makes it as far as being published then it has been reviewed by someone. A simple mistake will be caught.

Your comment here tries to benefit from your typically vague claims and arguments.... You have posted specific issues with results in science but trying to generalize it to science as a whole.

When other people can understand but you can't, maybe the problem is not me being 'vague' but you confusing yourself based on flawed assumptions and biases.

A case in point that is certainly not "vague":

My main point though was that a statement like "science works" is silly because there are many sciences and they don't "work" equally well.

Yet you still end up claiming the exact opposite of what I said. I must have told you 10 times that my main point is we should not treat all sciences the same, but you haven't even got that far yet.

You studied psychology, you should understand the likely reasons why you have consistently failed to process such a simple point

Question to you: do you think experiments in science can provide valid results?

Of course.

Do you think valid results are far more common in some sciences than others?

 

[rational experiences]

Earth observations.

Earth is unique in its form.

Laws in space in relative advice ...there aren't any. As information relies on the planet and it's heavens existing.

Men have egos. The story why did life get sacrificed. As men have egos the teaching.

Theme. Earth such and such. Okay. Yet the topic began as the subject the earth.

You do exist there is no past only present. The age of your genetics says how old in biology genetics are.

So men arguing against science said one. Just one. Presence is one myself. The thinker. All states with me natural.

As a planet does not age first.
Heavens owns the same gas only and it cools not ages.

Only a human ages.

Hence men said we are only surviving.

Pretty basic use of intelligence versus ego.

Men say light travels
Men say it's science.

They act as if science has a pre formed consciousness telling them.

Yet science conditions of belief for invention is only as natural is natural was to apply heat and light to mass a product.

Men invented fallout so lights travel as it is sciences cause. From above to below gases burning.

Science is only human theories in their owned human presence.

Tells the story why men's ego scientist is wrong.

Pretty basic reason who is wrong in a natural life.

So then you challenge them. They get quite angry at being challenged. Why?

Reasoned... it is what they believe about themselves.

So we remind them group bullying began control to allow your choice to over lord over rule family. With the threat murder.

Took slaves of family under threat due to childlike innocence to build inventive civilization. Toil to slave for invention.

You cannot challenge our organisation they claim just human.

The scientists history man to high science priest to ruler to king to rich man.

The warning man's egotism. His greed. His belief he is a God by science quotes I own all powers within my body.

Yet science began first with God the earth product. Just as a human first.

Our spiritual brother said possession of self who caused life's evil bodily attacks is real. I witnessed and documented it.

He is ego human destructive by a claim make a vessel hold the artificial cause within then release it.

His science machines about the same type of mentality. Yet he releases electricity. Not harmful he says.

The reaction within however is powerful. First place.

He says laws exist yet no law existed. He says he can manipulate laws artificially when all he is doing is changing higher forms of power into lesser states.

He learnt how wrong he was when earth natural attacked life.

His brother hence had to infer laws as advice from the reasoned why we were attacked as an argument of logic about reasonable thinking.

A different type of scientific purpose.