The contributions of Religion to sciences

[Guy Threepwood]

What do you even mean by this? I've never heard of "science" being referred to as an entity like this. There is no authority in science, as it is constantly evolving, so I don't get your meaning here.

One brief example on the recent topic might help

science the academic opinion: (academic institutions, political advocacy groups, pop science celebs etc)
CO2 is a harmful pollutant, it must be reduced to make the planet a greener place


Science the method. (repeated experiments, verifiable empirical evidence, accurate measurement and observation)
CO2 is what actually makes Earth green, most plants prefer far higher levels than we have today.

two different approaches, two different conclusions

 

[Jumi]

Drinking H2O is good for you. Drink too much and you'll be sick and even die.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes, I suspect i do.
You ar going to sugar coat your rose coloured glasses to justify your denial of the change.

No change. What he has done is give the correct sacrifice.
He upheld and fulfilled the law. Everything else was just a shadow of the reality.

 

[metis]

One brief example on the recent topic might help

science the academic opinion: (academic institutions, political advocacy groups, pop science celebs etc)
CO2 is a harmful pollutant, it must be reduced to make the planet a greener place


Science the method. (repeated experiments, verifiable empirical evidence, accurate measurement and observation)
CO2 is what actually makes Earth green, most plants prefer far higher levels than we have today.

two different approaches, two different conclusions

CO2 tends to retain heat within the atmosphere and this has been known since experiments in the 1800's confirmed that. About a half century ago, we began to read scientists using the term "greenhouse effect", and again this was confirmed through atmospheric studies. Also, we know that methane gas, which also has increased over the last century due to a substantial increase in livestock, has roughly 20 times more of the heat-retention characteristics of CO2.

Excessive CO2 is classified as a "pollutant", much like grass growing in the wrong section of one's yard can be called a "weed". The reality is that climate scientists generally do know what they're talking about, so why would anyone actually pooh-pooh their findings away and instead get their "science" from the likes of Fox, Breitbart, Limbaugh, etc.?

 

[Robert.Evans]

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

From the Encarta. I should have made it clear for you I suppose, it is the ROOT of the word that I meant:

sci·ence [s ənss]
(plural sci·ences)
n


[14th century. Via French < Latin scientia < scient- , present participle of scire "know, discern" < Indo-European, "cut"]

 

[Robert.Evans]

10 years?! What does that have to do with anything. We are talking about a warming trend over hundreds of years. A 10 year increment doesn't say anything about climate change.

It says that the climate is not warming, and that is what I said. The climate changes all the time over longer periods. No one is arguing that.

 

[Robert.Evans]

What do you even mean by this? I've never heard of "science" being referred to as an entity like this. There is no authority in science, as it is constantly evolving, so I don't get your meaning here.

Science will always have opinion. You said yourself that it changes all the time.

 

[metis]

It says that the climate is not warming, and that is what I said. The climate changes all the time over longer periods. No one is arguing that.

But it is warming, and this is based on real measurements that have been collected for over 200 years.

 

[leibowde84]

From the Encarta. I should have made it clear for you I suppose, it is the ROOT of the word that I meant:

sci·ence [s ənss]
(plural sci·ences)
n


[14th century. Via French < Latin scientia < scient- , present participle of scire "know, discern" < Indo-European, "cut"]

You do understand that the latin root of a word in no way dictates what a word means in modern english, though, right?

 

[leibowde84]

Science will always have opinion. You said yourself that it changes all the time.

That's why it is trustworthy. Absolute claims, on the other hand, should be met with absolute skepticism.

 

[Robert.Evans]

CO2 tends to retain heat within the atmosphere and this has been known since experiments in the 1800's confirmed that. About a half century ago, we began to read scientists using the term "greenhouse effect", and again this was confirmed through atmospheric studies. Also, we know that methane gas, which also has increased over the last century due to a substantial increase in livestock, has roughly 20 times more of the heat-retention characteristics of CO2.

Excessive CO2 is classified as a "pollutant", much like grass growing in the wrong section of one's yard can be called a "weed". The reality is that climate scientists generally do know what they're talking about, so why would anyone actually pooh-pooh their findings away and instead get their "science" from the likes of Fox, Breitbart, Limbaugh, etc.?

Doesn't most of co2 come from natural sources though?

 

[metis]

Science will always have opinion. You said yourself that it changes all the time.

Science does not work on "opinions"-- it works on "evidence". The fact that there's been an average increase in temperatures worldwide is based on what the rather clear-cut evidence is showing.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That's why it is trustworthy. Absolute claims, on the other hand, should be met with absolute skepticism.

I think Dawkins saying that evolution is fact is "absolute" isn't it.

 

[leibowde84]

Doesn't most of co2 come from natural sources though?

Since the Industrial Revolution, human sources of carbon dioxideemissions have been growing. Human activities such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, as well as deforestation are the primary cause of the increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Figure 1: Source: Le Quéré, C. et al. (2013).

 

[Robert.Evans]

Science does not work on "opinions"-- it works on "evidence". The fact that there's been an average increase in temperatures worldwide is based on what the rather clear-cut evidence is showing.

It's still someone's opinion on how they read the evidence though. that is why some scientists did not agree.
Evidence has to be interpreted. When we do so, we take on board our own ideas and world view.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Since the Industrial Revolution, human sources of carbon dioxideemissions have been growing. Human activities such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, as well as deforestation are the primary cause of the increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Figure 1: Source: Le Quéré, C. et al. (2013).

That doesn't answer the question.

 

[Robert.Evans]

But it is warming, and this is based on real measurements that have been collected for over 200 years.

Not according to the press for the last ten years where I have heard many times that it is cooling.

 

[leibowde84]

I think Dawkins saying that evolution is fact is "absolute" isn't it.

Not exactly. Something is "factual" if it cannot be validly disputed.
fact
fakt/
noun

1. a thing that is indisputably the case.

The ToE has not been validly disputed, and verifiable evidence of an alternative has not been found. On the contrary, vast amounts of evidence has been found that supports the ToE, so I think that the word "fact" applies.

But, Dawkins doesn't speak for science in general. He is one man who happens to be an expert in the field of evolutionary biology. But, like every man, he should be looked at with skepticism too.

 

[leibowde84]

Not according to the press for the last ten years where I have heard many times that it is cooling.

Can you at least provide a link to the "press" you are referring to?

 

[leibowde84]

It's still someone's opinion on how they read the evidence though. that is why some scientists did not agree.
Evidence has to be interpreted. When we do so, we take on board our own ideas and world view.

True. But, verifiable evidence is always far more convincing than subjective experience claimed to be evidence.