Controversies, scientific and otherwise

[MrBrucebracey]

brilliant video

[88Keyz101]

Science is the hardest thing Ive ever come across. I have the upmost admiration for it. Carl Sagan described in his book poetically of the discipline of the scientific method, how all prejudices, biases, appeals to authority, & anything else doesnt mean shit without evidence. The more I try to know about a subject, the more questions I end up with. I admire people who take the time to learn such riguorous work & in turn despise those who oppose it without opening up a book other than the bible.

[RJackson808]

Jesus Christ, even creatards can make a video with a listenable volume. It's not that hard. Get your sh*t together Nat cen for science ed.

[hivquestions]

AIDS is a controversy, scientific and otherwise

~

~

- all new interviews with all top scientists - hivquestions - peace

[Otokogoroshi]

@hivquestions No. Its not. I feel confident in calling you an idiot. Go watch Concordance.

[hivquestions]

@Otokogoroshi your confidence exceeds your current knowledge - and thats okay because there is a lot to find out - for example, wikipedia lists HIV on its most controversial subjects and issues page - not to mention all the doctors and scientists in the videos now in nine languages coming in from all around the world at youtube/hivquestions - there are also now 30 videos on the 'Youtube Public Opinion' videos playlist at hivquestions - peace

[archapmangcmg]

@hivquestions You are ignoring that HIV isn't a scientific controversy. That was Otokogoroshi's point. The consensus is solid.

[hivquestions]

@archapmangcmg ignoring - does that imply ignorance of science? or also of politicians and their agendas?

[archapmangcmg]

@hivquestions I watched the video you have with footage from House of Numbers, with its deceptive claims. This is hardly something anyone should be doing if they feel there really is something to discover or broadcast. Again, if there's a *scientific* controversy about AIDS, you've done zero to help the matter. No explanation, just blanket assertions, very Creationist in your approach, and we all know their example isn't one to follow.

Start again.

[hivquestions]

@archapmangcmg - good - now watch the videos again until you get the information - deprogramming from one belief to another is a process - and once you are reprogrammed without the deceptions from the politicians then things will be more clear to you - hang in there - i know how difficult it was for me when i first heard about all this - it was devastating because i had taken hiv drugs for 13 years already at that point - peace out

[archapmangcmg]

@hivquestions Ahem, start again does *not* mean "Make more empty statements and blanket assertions."

Start again with meeting the burden of proof of your claim that there is a *scientific* controversy. I'm willing to forgive the deceptive description on the video if you will actually start doing what you're supposed to do.

[jessemaurais]

The only controversy is the one that was fabricated by Creationists. They're like a spoiled child who stamps their feet demanding a cookie, but the scientific community isn't giving them a cookie.

[werecow2003]

When he says that the projections for the extent of global warming are scientifically controversial, it highlights another way in which manufactured controversies can be spun; the projections have "heavy tails", meaning that there is a lot of uncertainty, but the distribution is not symmetric, so that most of that uncertainty goes in the direction of more warming than the mean projections, rather than less - not the impression you get from listening to, say, Monckton, Watts or even Christy.

[Desertphile]

@werecow2003 ; You are of course 100% correct. Callendar showed human-produced CO2 had already warmed the planet by year 1937 (he published his paper on the subject in 1938). By the 1960s it was no longer a subject of debate among scientists: anthropogenic global warming was (and still is) a "done deal," no more debated among scientists than evolution is, or heliocentrism. All that's left to debate are the details.

[werecow2003]

@Desertphile I wouldn't say it wasn't debated at all anymore in the 60s, but by that time it had been accepted by a majority of climate scientists. And the consensus has been growing ever since, to the point of it being ridiculous for people to still be portraying it as controversial. It's unfortunate that this doesn't receive the same amount of attention from the skeptics community as, say, the evolution-creationism clash does. One of my pet peeves with the skepticism movement, really.

[099923257457]

@Thayer79 that why some many people home school.

[aman57]

Spiking about controversy: there is a controversy about the existence of God. Should we debate this in church?

[HConstantine]

Kin-Selection studies indicates evolutionary theory may need to be modified-->Earth created 6000 years ago by Israelite sky fairy. That makes good sense.

[sambricky]

So I take it that it is for political reasons that there is a priest on staff at the NCSE. I am still amiss as to why scientists have to show their controversy when the religious can act like there is is no controversy to religion.

[OriginalTharios]

As always, the primary issue is the misunderstanding of the difference between Inferential or Inductive logic and reasoning, and belief. Inductive Reasoning is to infer a premise based on the collective relationship between relevant facts. Those facts must be widely and independently proven according to objective scientific methodology. Belief is merely the assertion of a premise without regard for, or even entirely in spite of, the aforementioned independently verified facts.

[shandcunt]

@MsWanderer1 String theory is rediculously accurate and useful, its not so much that reality is made of strings but if you assume it is then you make some really useful predictions about how matter will act.

[MiniRagnarok]

Where is the T-Shirt for the spectacular teach the controversy graphics on the 1st slide?

It's a half-hearted joke. I would buy it.

[MsWanderer1]

Understanding how gravity works does not translate as knowing what gravity is; to know that we need to know the cause of both gravity and mass.

IMHO string theory has absolutely NO supporting evidence and thus is nothing more than saying "believe the experts who are so much smarter than you"; that makes it a controversy and a fallacy!

[caddy38]

@MsWanderer1 are you a string theorist? have you taken a class in theoretical physics? do you know what is classified as evidence? who is saying "beleive us because we are experts"? im training to become a scientist and appeals to authority are useless and unscientific. string theory is a developing theory and is in that way controversial but that doesn't make it a fallacy, it just needs more research. leave science to scientists, go read your bible and beleive in fairy tales and stfu

[alachabre]

@caddy38 I'm going to challenge your scientific training. What evidence can you offer that the person you are responding to is basing his/her statements on Biblical readings or fairy tales? I'm asking for evidence, now, not inference. Show your stuff, scientist!

[caddy38]

@alachabre As a scientist it is ok to make inferences if they are based on past observation. From my experience the only people who say certain scientific theories have no evidence and make ridiculous statements like "believe the experts who are so much smarter than you" and "that makes it a controversy and a fallacy" are bible thumping scientificlly illiterate christians. if i mislabled you i apologize...but that doesn't make my assertions that you are out of your league inaccurate.

[alachabre]

@caddy38 I would caution to take care in applying prejudices, well founded or not. All I see is someone doubting string theory as having no supportable evidence. That person is clearly not alone, and clearly, string theory is involved in controversy. Even the Big Bang and black holes are subject to rational scientific controversy. The point is to identify rational as opposed to irrational objections, and leave the Bible out of it, on both sides of the argument. And do try to attribute correctly!

[caddy38]

@alachabre Yeah i guess you have a good point but to call string theory and thus a fallacy is well...a fallacy. I'm super pissed of having to defend science from creationist retards that sometimes a fire away too quickly.

[kaitzi]

@caddy38 Exactly - and that's the beauty of science. You don't have to believe someone just because they're "experts", however if you want to have an intelligent debate with them you'd better make sure you know the background. You don't simply say, "I don't understand, therefore it's wrong!" If you don't understand how to make a cake, and have never attempted to make one or understand how to make one, you can't tell someone else they're making it wrong and expect to be taken seriously.

[SevenSixTwoNato]

@caddy38 Precisely. While much of string theory can't yet be tested (thereby causing the backlash in attempts to legitimize the "just a theory" talking point), there's nothing in current observed models or data that contradict it.

[MsWanderer1]

@caddy38

Obviously you did NOT look at my channel page and you should ask yourself those questions; not me.

String theory has failed for over 40 years to produce any results of any kind that can be viewed as science even though it has had enormous resources thrown at it. I don’t mind your ignorance but your stupidity is annoying and it is you that should STFU. YES I have over 40 years in high energy physics and radiometry; not to mention several NBS publications!

Have a nice day dick..!..

[caddy38]

@MsWanderer1 hahahaha yea....i beleive that lol

[Desertphile]

Meanwhile, anthropogenic global warming is not a controversy among scientists: consensus on the subject was achieved decades ago.

[ironmaidenfan7788]

what?! astrology is on the fringe of science!!!? good thing god exists, lol

[smashbeans]

cool vid

[FenriX123]

a bit low audio :)