Authority in science

... From what I see the human factor is still alive and well in the science world. Just look at Climate Change. Couldn’t fix the errors in Global Warming so change the name to Climate Change? What’s is in most people’s mind as the meaning of what climate change is? Weather. Then claim that people deny weather. I do not know one person on earth that will deny weather. Don’t even know how one would go about denying weather. That to me is poor science and the term “Climate Change" itself is a human and not a scientific factor...
This point about the terms "Global Warming" "being changed" to "Climate Change" is an unfortunately common misinterpretation. THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THESE TERMS. THEY REFER TO DIFFERENT PHENOMENA. "Global Warming" refers to the Earth warming. "Climate Change" occurs as a result of "Global Warming". (On the Earth surface there exist various local climates. If the average temperature of the entire planet changes significantly and persistently, then the local climates will be impacted.) Please understand this simple distinction. Please do not allow others to continue with this misunderstanding.
The God cell is just a name use for the creation of life. Steven Hawking uses the term god particle. The particle is the part that makes the cell come to life. I have not been following Hawking for some time now. But the latest news headlines is that this god particle if not handled right could destroy the universe.
The so-called "god particle" is the Higgs Boson, which has nothing to do with making cells come to life and is no threat to the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson] The destroying the universe part came from some ignoramus who made headlines a few years ago trying to sue the scientists at the LHC because he feared it would destroy the universe.
the latest news headlines is that this god particle if not handled right could destroy the universe.
What news are you reading?

Do internet search –News- Hawking God Particle.
‘God particle’ could destroy universe, says Stephen Hawking …
Stephen Hawking: ‘God particle’ could destroy the universe …
Hawking: ‘God Particle’ Could Wipe Out the Universe …
Stephen Hawking warns God particle could destroy the …
Stephen Hawking: “God particle" could demolish the universe
Professor Stephen Hawking is saying theoretically the Higgs Boson or the God Particle is very unstable at
RESPECTED physicist Stephen Hawking has warned the end of the world could be sparked by the elusive ‘God particle’.
The elusive ‘God particle’ discovered by scientists in 2012 has the potential to destroy the universe, famed British physicist Stephen Hawking …
In the forward to his collection of lectures, Hawking cites the Higgs boson, or “God particle,” may destroy the universe.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244

... From what I see the human factor is still alive and well in the science world. Just look at Climate Change. Couldn’t fix the errors in Global Warming so change the name to Climate Change? What’s is in most people’s mind as the meaning of what climate change is? Weather. Then claim that people deny weather. I do not know one person on earth that will deny weather. Don’t even know how one would go about denying weather. That to me is poor science and the term “Climate Change" itself is a human and not a scientific factor...
This point about the terms "Global Warming" "being changed" to "Climate Change" is an unfortunately common misinterpretation. THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THESE TERMS. THEY REFER TO DIFFERENT PHENOMENA. "Global Warming" refers to the Earth warming. "Climate Change" occurs as a result of "Global Warming". (On the Earth surface there exist various local climates. If the average temperature of the entire planet changes significantly and persistently, then the local climates will be impacted.) Please understand this simple distinction. Please do not allow others to continue with this misunderstanding. No, there was no misinterpretation. You cannot have misinterpretation on a new term. That’s like saying we will now call “abortion", “human growth adjustment". And anyone that doesn’t understand the new meaning is misinterpreting the meaning. Climate Change is not just the result of Global Warming. Climate Change would be the result of any change, including Global Cooling. Call it, what it is. The earth is in the warming stage of its natural warming and cooling cycles. Human activity has accelerated the earth’s natural warming cycle to the point, weather may not be considered just a natural cycle but a combination of natural and human intervention. Gore did a good job explaining what was going on. He just skipped over a major key point on his chart and time proved is data was off. But this type of data works in trends and over decades, so with the data available he did not do badly. Most people already had a basic and common understanding of what weather is. Climate Change was put forth so they didn’t have to say, our numbers and data was off, but let’s go ahead create a bunch of new laws and tax the hell out of you anyway using that bad data. Just muddy the water and miss direct the public by confusing the issues.
Do internet search –News- Hawking God Particle. 'God particle' could destroy universe, says Stephen Hawking ... Stephen Hawking: 'God particle' could destroy the universe ... Hawking: 'God Particle' Could Wipe Out the Universe ... Stephen Hawking warns God particle could destroy the ... Stephen Hawking: “God particle" could demolish the universe Professor Stephen Hawking is saying theoretically the Higgs Boson or the God Particle is very unstable at RESPECTED physicist Stephen Hawking has warned the end of the world could be sparked by the elusive 'God particle'. The elusive 'God particle' discovered by scientists in 2012 has the potential to destroy the universe, famed British physicist Stephen Hawking ... In the forward to his collection of lectures, Hawking cites the Higgs boson, or "God particle," may destroy the universe. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244
OK. I understand where you're coming from now. Keep in mind this idea of the Higgs Boson destroying the universe is very speculative and unrelated to the Large Hadron Collider. Your statement that "...the latest news headlines is that this god particle if not handled right could destroy the universe" shows a fundamental misunderstanding not only of science, but also of the news you read.
Climate Change was put forth so they didn’t have to say, our numbers and data was off, but let’s go ahead create a bunch of new laws and tax the hell out of you anyway using that bad data. Just muddy the water and miss direct the public by confusing the issues.
That is complete BS straight out of the Fox News misinformation campaign. The rate of current climate change is unprecedented and our carbon emissions are causing it. The people confusing the issue are the energy companies and their sycophants.
One has to think of Einstein who science was done without evidence. Only to be proven by others, truly amazing. I don't think Einstein would fit into the articles definition of science.
What a ridiculous thing to say. You obviously don't know what Theoretical Physics is. A theoretical physicist is every inch a scientist and what he practices is science. Einstein is seen by most scientists as the greatest theoretical physicist in the world. Albert Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist, best known for his Special and General Theory of Relativity and the concept of mass-energy equivalence expressed by the famous equation, E = mc2. He received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 “for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" and he made some essential contributions to the early development of quantum theory. He was named "Person of the Century" by Time magazine in 1999, the fourth most admired person of the 20th Century according to a 1999 Gallup poll, and “the greatest scientist of the twentieth century and one of the supreme intellects of all time" according to “The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History" in 1978. What is a Theoretical Physicist? Theoretical physicists use mathematics to describe certain aspects of Nature. Sir Isaac Newton was the first theoretical physicist, although in his own time his profession was called "natural philosophy". By Newton's era people had already used algebra and geometry to build marvelous works of architecture, including the great cathedrals of Europe, but algebra and geometry only describe things that are sitting still. In order to describe things that are moving or changing in some way, Newton invented calculus. The most puzzling and intriguing moving things visible to humans have always been been the sun, the moon, the planets and the stars we can see in the night sky. Newton's new calculus, combined with his "Laws of Motion", made a mathematical model for the force of gravity that not only described the observed motions of planets and stars in the night sky, but also of swinging weights and flying cannonballs in England. Today's theoretical physicists are often working on the boundaries of known mathematics, sometimes inventing new mathematics as they need it, like Newton did with calculus. Newton was both a theorist and an experimentalist. He spent many many long hours, to the point of neglecting his health, observing the way Nature behaved so that he might describe it better. The so-called "Newton's Laws of Motion" are not abstract laws that Nature is somehow forced to obey, but the observed behavior of Nature that is described in the language of mathematics. In Newton's time, theory and experiment went together. http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic1.htmli See also http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics {The point is that science is designed to dismiss the significance of any individual or authority and to focus on evidence. Science pays attention, not to eminence, but to evidence.} Note, this is not what happened with Einstein. He was considered a scientist based upon theory. Yet he had no proof. And he had no evidence. You show that have no understanding of theoretical science. There was plenty of evidence supporting Einstein's theories (and the theories of other scientists). Without scientific theories--which are completely different from infornal theories--there would be no understanding of the cosmos. "A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested. "Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence. They unify and synchronize the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example, biology has the theory of evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory and cosmology has the Big Bang. The development of theories is a key element of the scientific method as they are used to make predictions about the world; if these predictions fail, the theory is revised. Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher "rank" (contrary to the belief that "theories" become "laws" over time). "'Theory' is a Jekyll-and-Hyde term that means different things depending on the context and who is using it. While in everyday speech anything that attempts to provide an explanation for a cause can be dubbed a "theory", a scientific theory has a much more specific meaning. Scientific theory is far more than just a casual conjecture or some Joe's guesswork. A theory in this context is a well-substantiated explanation for a series of facts and observations that is testable and can be used to predict future observations." Read more at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory See also, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity The subject of Lausten post was the article “Authority in Science". You are changing the subject. What I stated was that in the article “Authority in Science" they would have dismiss Einstein because he had no evidence. I was pointing out that Einstein did not fit their definition of science. Therefore I did not agree with the article’s definition of science. I think you and I are on the same page with Einstein. The question is do you agree or disagree with the article? I didn't change the subject, you did. You brought up Einstein and claimed he was not a scientist. That was what I was responding to. I was right on topic in responding to your ridiculous post about Einstein. Lois A miss understanding. Sorry. What I was trying to say was that the article "Authority in Science" said you need proof or the "focus on evidence" to be called a scientist. That i had trouble with because of people like Einstein and Hawkins who work mostly in theories. Where is Hawkins' evidence of the God cell? It is all theory. You still have not answered the question. Do you agree or disagree with the article? That's the subject, not me. In essence. But it doesn't discuss theoretical science, which is a valid and necessary arm of science. The scientific theories scientists work on have plenty of evidence to support them, and they always identify their theories, unlike most non-scientific and lay theorists that often propose wild guesses with no scientific foundation and call them "theories."There is no similarity in scientific and amateur or lay theories. Lois
“A particle accelerator that reaches 100bn GeV would be larger than Earth, and is unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate." Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1465059/stephen-hawking-god-particle-could-destroy-the-universe-without-warning/#9yhB2G2Ac4SiAR8e.99
I find a slight difference between what you said Mike, "if not handled correctly" and needing a particle accelerator larger than the earth itself, as stated by the RESPECTED Stephen Hawking above.
Climate Change was put forth so they didn’t have to say, our numbers and data was off, but let’s go ahead create a bunch of new laws and tax the hell out of you anyway using that bad data. Just muddy the water and miss direct the public by confusing the issues.
That is complete BS straight out of the Fox News misinformation campaign. The rate of current climate change is unprecedented and our carbon emissions are causing it. The people confusing the issue are the energy companies and their sycophants. "The rate of current climate change is unprecedented". Where's your proof? Question, if man was not on earth. Would there still be climate change? Would the ocean levels still rise? And I am not saying you are not right. But I am having trouble figuring out how you can come up with the conclusion all this will stop and go away by changing the carbon levels. Yes, all the scientist agree the earth is getting warmer. So do I. And, yes man is contributing to the warmth. Those are given items that go without question. But to measure anything you have to have a starting point or a relationship point or line. Here we have nine earth weather cycles in one million years. Now of all these scientist that agree the earth is getting warmer. The one thing they can not agree upon is where the earth is in this weather cycle. Some say we have reached the peak, others say we have thousands of years before we reach the peak. And still others say we have passed the peak and are now in the cooling cycle and the weather just takes time to follow and change and catch up with the cycle. Some say there has always been species extinction at the peak of the cycles. But man has survived with no problem. Some say that mans extra heat will cause more species extinction than normal. Sounds reasonable. But then other say as the earth heats, most of the extra heat will be lost in space. I would like the answer to these question before I give my backing to one of the groups. What if we have peaked and are now in the cooling cycle. 90 thousand years to warm, but only 10 thousand years to cool and be in an ice age. Let's find the answer to that very basic question. Where is the earth in its weather cycle? Just as no two computer climate change models have ever matched, I would like to see the scientist in agreement as to earth's cycle and have the computer models agreeing. When the top climate guys talk, they are not near as positive as the rest of the people like Al Gore is about the climate. And I don't get that warm and fuzzy feeling that they feel they have a full picture of how all the energy is being distributed. This whole issue is still to politically driven for proper decisions.
“A particle accelerator that reaches 100bn GeV would be larger than Earth, and is unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate." Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1465059/stephen-hawking-god-particle-could-destroy-the-universe-without-warning/#9yhB2G2Ac4SiAR8e.99
I find a slight difference between what you said Mike, "if not handled correctly" and needing a particle accelerator larger than the earth itself, as stated by the RESPECTED Stephen Hawking above.
That's good information, makes me feel better. Thanks
But I am having trouble figuring out how you can come up with the conclusion all this will stop and go away by changing the carbon levels.
Where did I say that? You need to educate yourself on what is happening and the causes. Here are a few good places to start: http://www.realclimate.org] http://www.skepticalscience.com] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]
Here we have nine earth weather cycles in one million years.
Scientists have many methods of studying Earth's past climate. The links above provide the information.
Some say there has always been species extinction at the peak of the cycles. But man has survived with no problem.
Wrong. How human beings almost vanish from Earth in 70,000 B.C.] You have a lot of reading ahead of you to correct your misconceptions.
“A particle accelerator that reaches 100bn GeV would be larger than Earth, and is unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate."
I find a slight difference between what you said Mike, "if not handled correctly" and needing a particle accelerator larger than the earth itself, as stated by the RESPECTED Stephen Hawking above.
That's good information, makes me feel better. Thanks It would make me feel better if you read the articles you claim support your argument instead of just posting headlines.
But I am having trouble figuring out how you can come up with the conclusion all this will stop and go away by changing the carbon levels.
Where did I say that? You need to educate yourself on what is happening and the causes. Here are a few good places to start: http://www.realclimate.org] http://www.skepticalscience.com] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]
Here we have nine earth weather cycles in one million years.
Scientists have many methods of studying Earth's past climate. The links above provide the information.
Some say there has always been species extinction at the peak of the cycles. But man has survived with no problem.
Wrong. How human beings almost vanish from Earth in 70,000 B.C.] You have a lot of reading ahead of you to correct your misconceptions. Where did I say that? You said that in your last post. “The rate of current climate change is unprecedented and our carbon emissions are causing it." Scientists have many methods of studying Earth’s past climate. Yes they do have many methods of studying the Earth’s past. But can you show any one of the methods that has been use more or referred to more about past climate in Global Warming than the ice cores? Wrong. How human beings almost vanish from Earth in 70,000 B.C. The human extinction was caused by the eruption of Mt. Toba 74,000 to 71,000 BC., not the earth's weather cycle.
“A particle accelerator that reaches 100bn GeV would be larger than Earth, and is unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate."
I find a slight difference between what you said Mike, "if not handled correctly" and needing a particle accelerator larger than the earth itself, as stated by the RESPECTED Stephen Hawking above.
That's good information, makes me feel better. Thanks It would make me feel better if you read the articles you claim support your argument instead of just posting headlines. The articles talked about several way the process could happen without the 100 bn GeV’s. Such as quantum fluctuations and quantum tunneling.
It would make me feel better if you read the articles you claim support your argument instead of just posting headlines.
The articles talked about several way the process could happen without the 100 bn GeV’s. Such as quantum fluctuations and quantum tunneling. I can't find those words in the article I linked, and I'm not going to go chasing them down just to straighten you out on what they mean and how they don't match what you said earlier.
It would make me feel better if you read the articles you claim support your argument instead of just posting headlines.
The articles talked about several way the process could happen without the 100 bn GeV’s. Such as quantum fluctuations and quantum tunneling. I can't find those words in the article I linked, and I'm not going to go chasing them down just to straighten you out on what they mean and how they don't match what you said earlier. ***** The overall concept being made by the destroying universe theories is that they seem to think there is a balancing process taking place with all the types of these new found energy partials that make up the missing energy that they had been looking for and now they think they have found. The way I read it is that this energy has to stay within a tolerance of energy levels to be stable. And they are saying that there are several possible ways these energy levels could become unstable and get outside of the stable tolerance levels and the universe would destroy itself. And I don’t think a research of off subject matter is what the posts are for. But if requested I would spend the time to work on matters of interest with you. But I get the feeling that there is more of a socio-psychological factor to be looked at in the strategic-tactical methods of the questioning taking place. Sort of a wolf pack interrogation tactics for some people. In the “Authority in science", what I have brought up is subjects like “Climate Change" to show the political influence on science today. Anybody with half a brain reading these posts over the last several years would have realized that the whole term “Climate Change" came about when “Global Warming" was taking a political hit and was brought out in the reports from the White House as a safety net for the White House. Just go read some of the old posting if you can’t remember. To me, that is wrong, and I brought it to the table. But the safety net terms then becomes a scientific term. That in itself shows the influence of the government in controlling the direction of science. We still use the term “evolution" and not always the safety net term “Intelligent Design", the religious scape goat term, but it’s just about the same thing. The term “Global Warming" is becoming a term use less and less today. Now one has to ask, what harm can come from the government misdirecting science a little bit for political reasons? After all that been taking place going way back in history. My feeling on this is very strong after watching the government crush people claiming the government was spying on everyone and walking all over the Constitution of the United States and lying to the people that they are there to serve. The government is pissed at Edward Snowden, are you? If it was just one or two little incidents, I could live with that and not say anything. But I am finding out the system is broken and needs to be fixed. Just look in the news at this article, http://nypost.com/2015/02/08/chinas-secret-plan-to-topple-the-us-as-the-worlds-superpower/ and ask yourself, why did it take so long for Michael Pillsbury to question his own policies? Basically he says that our government has been helping build our enemy.
Anybody with half a brain reading these posts over the last several years would have realized that the whole term “Climate Change" came about when “Global Warming" was taking a political hit and was brought out in the reports from the White House as a safety net for the White House. Just go read some of the old posting if you can’t remember. To me, that is wrong, and I brought it to the table. But the safety net terms then becomes a scientific term.
Scientific terms, to me, would be things like ice core samples that show a changing climate throughout history. You can't boil down one of the largest databases of scientific information into two words. That IS the job of politicians. Unfortunately science can only proceed at a pace that matches our ability to collect and understand data. Politics has to do the best it can in the moment.
Anybody with half a brain reading these posts over the last several years would have realized that the whole term “Climate Change" came about when “Global Warming" was taking a political hit and was brought out in the reports from the White House as a safety net for the White House. Just go read some of the old posting if you can’t remember. To me, that is wrong, and I brought it to the table. But the safety net terms then becomes a scientific term.
Scientific terms, to me, would be things like ice core samples that show a changing climate throughout history. You can't boil down one of the largest databases of scientific information into two words. That IS the job of politicians. Unfortunately science can only proceed at a pace that matches our ability to collect and understand data. Politics has to do the best it can in the moment. I respect you thoughts. But I respectfully disagree on the politicians’ job in the field of science for a couple of reasons. I feel pretty confident that we would have been to Mars already with the amount of money that has been spent in space program if it was not for the political involvement. It was political involvement in our schools system that is causing us to spend one more year in education than is necessary, if the proper education methods were used. There would be no illiteracy in the United States if it were not for political involvement. The job of our politicians is not to be naming and directing the scientific projects. They are to watch and fund the projects if the project objectives are being meet. They are to be watching our constitutional rights and keeping the courts moving in a quick method. I totally agree with you about science moving with the ability to collect and understand data. So we now have the terms: Global Climate Change Global Warming Climate Change Global Change Tim gave us the EPA’s meaning of Global Warming vs Climate Change. And it seems to be the one that is being used most today and might prevail. So, now if I have this right, what we have going on in the United States is warming in the Climate Change and Global Warming is some parts of the United States in some years, but there has been an overall Global Cooling in the United States, even though the world has been warming in the Climate Change. But Al Gore would use “Global Change" instead of Climate Change. And the scientist are using Global Climate Change where the public is using just Climate Change. Because the public has followed the political side more than the scientific side of the issue.
I respect you thoughts. But I respectfully disagree on the politicians’ job in the field of science for a couple of reasons. I feel pretty confident that we would have been to Mars already with the amount of money that has....
You're disagreeing with something I didn't say. I said what the politicians job is, not that they are doing it well. And I didn't say it is their job to meddle in science. They should be allowing scientists to do their job independently. That would probably still mean some funding decisions, but without strings attached. I'm not going to try to work out those problems in this thread.