Bill Maher's New Rule - science is made by scientists not idiots

Bill Maher always tells it like it is

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

• Bill
• Maher
• global
• warming
• deniers
• environment
• commentary
• politics
• dirty
• fuels
• oils
• clean
• energy
• Science
• Power
• Solar
• Gas
• Natural Gas
• Green
• Change
• Climate
• news
• talk
• Generator
• Electric
• Electricity
• Global Warming
• Magnet
• Entertainment

[engineercaseyjones]

It is not that scientists believe or do not believe. It is based upon fact, or it is not. It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of understanding that the facts point out that this is happening or not. If the preponderance of evidence supports the theory, then it is up to anyone who does not accept the findings to bring forth research and facts that disprove the evidence encountered to date. Anti-global climate change opponents have not done this. Opinions are not facts in science.

[imillard58]

Bottom Line: Science is always right, because science explains facts. If the facts are lacking then scientists do research to find the facts.

Religious people fill the factual void with superstitious nonsense, fables and fairy tales.

It's fine to be upset or uncomfortable when facing the unknown, but if you substitute mindless belief for empirical observation you will never progress. Oh, the rest of us scientific folk will - but you won't.

[myrelative]

argumentum ad numerum: global warming is true because xyz scientists believe it

[misakihou]

Idiots keep saying "There are lot of things science can't explain, so science is not always right". Science is not a philosophy, science is a tool if you will, that we use to understand our reality. The reason we can't explain a lot of things is because there is no way to physically observe or experiment on those things. Our understanding and knowledge is limited to we can see, touch, theorize, and experiment.

[misakihou]

.... then we move on to the next possible explanation that test true so far and would have a deeper understanding of what everything is. This is science. 

[misakihou]

Until finally we are left with a good general idea of what we observed an a sound "theory" that has proven TRUE thus-far by all available tests and experiments. Because of there is an INFINITE possibilities, there can not ever just be 1 and only theory. That is why all "THEORIES" are still just theories and not absolute fact. If we find evidence in the future that dis-proves our current accepted theory.....

[misakihou]

.... "the shorter light wave, which is blue, gets absorbed and radiated by the gas molecules in our atmosphere in a process called Rayleigh Scattering that makes it look blue." Then we go through the process of elimination and weed down all the possible "theories". The more we understand about the question through reproduced experimentation, the more of these "theories" we can eliminate.........

[misakihou]

Its so very sad that most idiots (majority of the population) do not fundamentally understand science. I'll try to explain in a way that any idiot can understand. Science is the system of understanding the reality we live in through observational theory by the process of elimination. We start with an observation and a question. Why is the sky blue? There are infinite explanation and possibility for why te sky is blue, like "grandma painted it blue", "god made it blue" or............

[levanyzzuf]

@sidecar771 To elaborate on what I meant there, no amount of experiments can ever PROVE a scientific theory, but a single experiment can disprove one. Scientists should always seek empirical data that the current theory cannot account for. An example would be Einstein's cosmological constant (before Hubble made his discovery). Before this it was thought that the universe was static in size. To make his theory work in the static universe model, he developed the constant that was shown to be wrong

[levanyzzuf]

@sidecar771 I can assure you that your remark on Rushton was a generalization. As disgusting as most of his work is, there are many biologists/geneticists who approve of it and his theoretical model. I'm not sure that AGW skeptics lack the "requisite data", merely that they often present it in a fallacious manner. Science should never be regarded as dogma, and legitimate researchers should spend their careers trying to disprove their conclusions rather than limiting research to reinforce them.