Community Chat

[pitdakota]

---

@Laura14 wrote:

And if a scientist began to believe that the prevailing theory may be incorrect, how would he or she be treated? Think about it. Probably a lot like this with their reputation discredited and hard up for funding. It is in everyone's best interest to make sure it's okay for someone anyone to say we know more now and the theory needs to change. Don't blindly follow the cause celeb of the decade. Understand everyone's motivation and agendas. Open eyes and minds both ways is truly my only point here.

---

_____________________________________________

@Laura14, I hope this comes across in the discussional manner that is my intention....which is always very difficult on a discussion board.  But this situation has occurred over and over in science.  Since I conducted some research...I see it all of the time.  Most however, don't consume those type of scientific journals or scientific forums, associations, etc.

The one thing to thing to think about is that a theory will hardly ever be proven in the manner you are talking about here.  For example, this type of thinking is what allowed the tobacco industry to testify before Congress that smoking did not cause lung cancer.  Why?  Because there are all kinds of people out there that smoke cigarettes that do not ever develop lung cancer.  And BTW, I have an aunt that fell into that category.  She smoked from the time she was in her early teens, was a heavy smoker throughout her entire life.  Lived to be 95 years old without any type of cancer, any lung problems, etc.  She developed Alzheimer's disease and died related to complications of not being able to swallow.  But that doesn't mean that the vast majority of people that smoke won't develop lung cancer.  And it doesn't mean that people that don't ever smoke won't develop lung cancer.  But we know beyond a reasonable doubt that smoking is correlated with lung cancer, respiratory disease, and other cancers.   So if one is looking for absolute proof 100% of the time, that just doesn't exist in research.  At all.

That isn't even the purpose of research.  I think many times people misinterpret the goal of research is to "prove" something.  The purpose of research is develop "new" knowledge and explore relationships between and independent and dependent variable.  Obviously as we learn more about the relationship of those variables, knowlege about a situation will and should advance and yes...sometimes it changes.  Doesn't mean that anyone is wrong.  But we do have a multitude of examples of where prevalent thinking based on research is "a",.  Then new solid, rigorous research discovers new knowledge that puts the relationship of "a" in question.  Scientists then start to develop ideas to then examine the relationship given what that research supports.  Happens all of the time. 

I live in a metropolitian area with quite a bit of rural area surrounding the city in the county.  We are at that time of year where every day in the morning, the urban island effect is evident in the temperatures.  They will show the temps in the morning for my city and then the other little towns out in the rural areas.  Every single time, the temp in the city is a minimum of 2 degrees warmer than the other towns. 

And we are approaching that time of year where the weather forecast will give our low temp for the night, which will always be warmer than the surrounding towns.  Urban island effect.  All of that asphault, concrete, steel, crowded buidlings in the city retain the heat so that the city does not cool down to the degree of the more rural areas.  I am not the only one around that sees that in their weather forecast on a routine basis. 

But there is no doubt that any research has stood the rigor of being 100% right, 100% of the time.  And that isn't even the goal of research.  It is to learn about the relationship among variables and how they impact each other that has a high rate of reliability.  But doesn't mean it will test out that way 100% of the time. 

[Cakers3]

---

@Laura14 wrote:

---

@Cakers3 wrote:

---

@Laura14 wrote:

---

@goldensrbest wrote:

---

@Laura14 wrote:

And yet we never hear any of this in all the years we don't have natural disasters so close together.  

Worry not.  When someone upstairs wants you, they'll take you even if a house has to fall on you to do it.    

---

I am not sure that is always the case,i use to think that but now question it.

---

@goldensrbest  I personally believe scientist take their best guess but it's still a guess.  The longer I live, the more I see them change their mind about stuff they were so certain about years before.  Ooops.  

---

@Laura14  Do you have specific scientists in mind who have flip-flopped on the issue?

If not, your point is........pointless.

---

@Cakers3While you are on your critique run, make sure you address the right person and really read who posted what.   And I would hope you would actually consider another point of view and not just defend your own.  

Whole point of my presence in this thread.

---

@Laura14What I highlighted in red is your post, not goldensrbest.

So again-can you tell me specific scientists who have changed their minds?

I'm open to an opposing pov but not without back up.

[Cakers3]

---

@Kachina624 wrote:

Puerto Rico has been in dire financial straits for some time.  I have a feeling the cost for cleaning up the hurricane mess will fall on the US.  They are 100%  without electricity. 

---

@Kachina624  It will-it's our territory and our responsibility.  The island is destroyed, really,  Last I heard electricity will take up to 6 months to restore. 

[Plaid Pants2]

---

@Laura14 wrote:

---

@Cakers3 wrote:

---

@Laura14 wrote:

---

@goldensrbest wrote:

---

@Laura14 wrote:

And yet we never hear any of this in all the years we don't have natural disasters so close together.  

Worry not.  When someone upstairs wants you, they'll take you even if a house has to fall on you to do it.    

---

I am not sure that is always the case,i use to think that but now question it.

---

@goldensrbest  I personally believe scientist take their best guess but it's still a guess.  The longer I live, the more I see them change their mind about stuff they were so certain about years before.  Ooops.  

---

@Laura14  Do you have specific scientists in mind who have flip-flopped on the issue?

If not, your point is........pointless.

---

@Cakers3While you are on your critique run, make sure you address the right person and really read who posted what.   And I would hope you would actually consider another point of view and not just defend your own.  

Whole point of my presence in this thread.

---

You mean. ' do as I say, not as I do'?

[Noel7]

Part of the problem in discussion might be that some people aren't aware that a scientific theory doesn't mean the same thing as a hunch.  In science, theory means tested and proven.

[on the bay]

It was so heartbreaking to see the news in Mexico. I was so hoping they would find more of the children

and teachers alive.

It is hard to imagine the suffering for people who are experiencing these tragedies.

[Shorty2U]

Terrible, horrific. And my best friend (from school) parents live in Puerto Rico. Been trying to get ahold of my friend (who lives on the west coast), to ask about her parents to no avail. But my friends always traveling. I am praying they left before the hurricane and came to the states or if they stayed that they are OK.

[Cakers3]

---

@on the bay wrote:

It was so heartbreaking to see the news in Mexico. I was so hoping they would find more of the children

and teachers alive.

It is hard to imagine the suffering for people who are experiencing these tragedies.

---

@on the bay  The crews stand in silence listening for any cries from survivors buried in the rubble. 

I cannot imagine.

[aggravated]

Mother Nature is not on a mission to destroy.  Humans have killed her planet, and denying that they have done so.