[__ Science __ ] MUST WATCH: Global COVID Summit - Declaration IV - Restore Scientific Integrity

[jasonc]

For me, too. That soreness is the immune reaction. The first shot boosted your immune response to the antigen, so it reacts more strongly than the first shot. It's a good thing, although it might not feel so good at the time.

I had covid before the second shot .the second shot was worse

 

[Barbarian]

Yeah, that probably was why. Short-term, the immunity you get from a recent COVID-19 infection is higher than most shots. It just doesn't seem to last as long.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

In science, a theory is not just a hypothesis. A law is a hypothesis that has been proven over and over again by a large amount of data. But a theory is a law that also includes an explanation. So the law would be, "Life evolves." The theory would be, "Life evolves through the process of natural selection."

As you may have realized by now, proof is not part of science.

Great coordination, guys! Way to go, Team "Science"!

LOL

 

[T. E. Smith]

Great coordination, guys! Way to go, Team "Science"!

LOL

Okay, there are two definitions of proof.

One is the mathematical and philosophical proof. This proof is purely based on logic and it is one that we can be certain of.

The second is the legal, scientific, and layman definition of proof. This proof is based largely on observation is imperfect.

So much confusion occurs when these terms are misunderstood.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Okay, there are two definitions of proof.

One is the mathematical and philosophical proof. This proof is purely based on logic and it is one that we can be certain of.

The second is the legal, scientific, and layman definition of proof. This proof is based largely on observation is imperfect.

So much confusion occurs when these terms are misunderstood.

Here, you admit that what you, being a Darwinist, call "science" and "scientific," has nothing to do with logic. I'll continue to stick to thinking in accordance with logic and truth, and you can continue to enjoy your war against logic and truth—your "science"—all by yourself.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Here, you admit that what you, being a Darwinist, call "science" and "scientific," has nothing to do with logic. I'll continue to stick to thinking in accordance with logic and truth, and you can continue to enjoy your war against logic and truth—your "science"—all by yourself.

No, I said it is not purely logic. It also involves observation.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

No, I said it is not purely logic. It also involves observation.

Good to know that you use your word, "observation," to refer to thinking illogically. Thanks for the info.

 

[Free]

What does any of this have to do with the topic?

 

[T. E. Smith]

What does any of this have to do with the topic?

Yeah you're right, we're combining topics. I'm going to stop discussing this subject in this thread.

 

[Free]

Yeah you're right, we're combining topics. I'm going to stop discussing this subject in this thread.

It may not matter too much. Another thread will be started when the next wave comes. Ha ha

 

[Barbarian]

Great coordination, guys! Way to go, Team "Science"!

Still, after all that, there never is 100% proof of a theory. Even a hundred million successful tests and observations cannot prove a theory; they can validate a theory, they can demonstrate the robustness of a theory, but a single irreconcilable, reproducible observation is enough to show that a theory is not correct in all regimes, everywhere. This is likely true of all theories, by the way: that they have a range-of-validity, and outside of that range their validity breaks down.

The burden of proof

If a scientific theory can never be “100% proven,” how can we know what’s true?

medium.com

You're still confusing the colloquial use of "proof" with logical certainty, which is never true of theories, even those which have been confirmed again and again by huge amounts of evidence.

I get that this can be very confusing for someone who is not familiar with the epistemological basis of science. Sorry. It's just something you'll have to get, to understand how it works.

However, the assertion that theories differ from laws in that theories explain as well as predict ( and laws merely predict) is correct.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

As you may have realized by now, proof is not part of science.

Of course I have long realized that proof is not part of the nonsense, falsehood, and irrational thinking that people like you reverently call "science". Duh.

You're still confusing the colloquial use of "proof" with logical certainty, which is never true of theories, even those which have been confirmed again and again by huge amounts of evidence.

Q. What does any question of whether or not someone is certain that the proposition, P, is true have to do with whether or not P is proved to be true?

A. Absolutely nothing.

Oh, and by the way, what do you make of your meaningless phrase, "logical certainty" (a phrase which I've never used, and would never use), which you're obviously quite fond of parroting? By your adjective, "logical," are you really modifying your noun, "certainty," so that you actually mean something different by saying "logical certainty" than you'd mean by just saying "certainty"? Or, are you just handing us a faux modification, there, by superfluously inserting your adjective, "logical"?

Here, you are calling something just "a certainty," rather than "a logical certainty":

It is a certainty that anatomically modern humans evolved from other species of humans,

It is an illogical certainty, then?

In science, a theory is not just a hypothesis. A law is a hypothesis that has been proven over and over again by a large amount of data.

So, according to you, Barbarian, T. E. Smith is wrong, here, when he says that "in science," something "has been proven..."? Yes or No?

Between the two of you, Barbarian and T. E. Smith, which one of you is the one using "proof"/"proven" in accordance with whatever it is Barbarian calls "the colloquial use"?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

What does any of this have to do with the topic?

You don't think questions as to what (if anything) those whom you revere as "scientists" mean by certain words they commonly choose to use in the public performance of their craft—you don't think such questions are relevant to any discussion headed by a phrase like "Scientific Integrity"? Why not?

 

[Barbarian]

As you may have realized by now, proof is not part of science.

Of course I have long realized that proof is not part of the nonsense, falsehood, and irrational thinking that people like you reverently call "science". Duh.

I have met some people ignorant or delusional enough to think that scientists are "reverent" about science. First time here, though. But denials aside, you kept trying to insert logical certainty into the process. No point in changing the story, now.

You're still confusing the colloquial use of "proof" with logical certainty, which is never true of theories, even those which have been confirmed again and again by huge amounts of evidence.

Oh, and by the way, what do you make of your meaningless phrase, "logical certainty"

Kurt Gödel was a philosopher best known for his famous incompleteness theorems, first delivered in 1930. Gödel showed that logical systems, no matter how well thought out, will always contain statements that can’t be proven true or false, and that those systems can’t prove that they are consistent with themselves.

Classic Reconsidered: Godel, Escher, Bach

blogs.tip.duke.edu

Barbarian observes:
It is a certainty that anatomically modern humans evolved from other species of humans

It is an illogical certainty, then?

It is not provable. But it is certain. See above. Godel could show that any sufficiently powerful formal system has truths that cannot be proven within that system. But they remain truths.

So, according to you, Barbarian, T. E. Smith is wrong, here, when he says that "in science," something "has been proven..."? Yes or No?

As you were told, he's using the colloquial meaning of "proven." In science we don't. If it can't be proven in a formal system, it's not.

Not being a scientist, he didn't use the word as science does. You, too. It's not surprising. Because you don't get the epistemic issues here, you keep running into walls.

 

[Barbarian]

You don't think questions as to what (if anything) those whom you revere as "scientists"

[/QUOTE]
You're kind of hung up on that term, aren't you? I'm guessing that's a little window into the issues you have with reason and logic.

mean by certain words they commonly choose to use in the public performance of their craft—you don't think such questions are relevant to any discussion headed by a phrase like "Scientific Integrity"?

[/QUOTE]
I was mentioning gerbers in a discussion with someone on gardening once. He looked a bit puzzled, until we clarified meaning. Turns out "gerbers" has a specific meaning in printed circuit design, which is entirely different than the plants I was speaking about.

Do you think that was relevant to and discussion headed by a phrase like "printed circuit manufacturing integrity?"

No, it sure doesn't seem like it.

Why not?

Maybe if you thought about it for a bit, you could figure it out.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Kurt Gödel was a philosopher best known for his famous incompleteness theorems, first delivered in 1930. Gödel showed that logical systems, no matter how well thought out, will always contain statements that can’t be proven true or false, and that those systems can’t prove that they are consistent with themselves.

What do you mean by "showed"?

In the dictionary entry for the verb, "show," we read: "demonstrate or prove".

Do you mean "Gödel [demonstrated or proved] that...."? If not, then what (if anything) do you mean? So far, you've not told us what is the difference between demonstrating that the proposition, P, is true and proving that the proposition, P, is true.

BTW, wasn't Gödel just one of the many, modern irrationalist fools (whom other irrationalist fools, out of reverence, like to call "philosophers") who claim that truth can/does contradict truth?

And, why would anyone in his/her right mind ever call a set of mutually-inconsistent propositions, a "system"?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I have met some people ignorant or delusional enough to think that scientists are "reverent" about science. First time here, though.

I have met many people ignorant and delusional enough to express their reverence for professional Darwinists by calling them, "scientists," and by calling their Darwinism, "science". Pathetically, those of them who exhibit the most fervent, despicable reverence for professional Darwinists are the professional Darwinists, themselves. It's no wonder that professional Darwinists so love, and consider it indispensable, at all costs, to have to themselves the reins on the power to subject children, through their compulsory government schools, to being regularly, defenselessly assaulted by the stultifying, brutalizing mental abuse that professional Darwinists love dishing out against their marks.

 

[Free]

You don't think questions as to what (if anything) those whom you revere as "scientists" mean by certain words they commonly choose to use in the public performance of their craft—you don't think such questions are relevant to any discussion headed by a phrase like "Scientific Integrity"? Why not?

I’m more interested in why people think a bunch of people in nondescript lab coats in a stage setting, means they are truthful in their claims about COVID. Especially when the website for the supposed Global COVID Summit fails to provide many thousands of signatories for their “Declaration.” Scientific integrity has nothing to with it because it isn’t at all scientific; it’s purposeful misinformation and disinformation from a handful of people.

 

[Barbarian]

I have met many people ignorant and delusional enough to express their reverence for professional Darwinists by calling them, "scientists," and by calling their Darwinism, "science".

Scientists are generally Darwinists, although about 0.3% of biologists aren't Darwinists, last time I checked. And of course Darwinian theory is indeed science. Quoting YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood, who is both a YE creationist and a scientist:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it.

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

Pathetically, those of them who exhibit the most fervent, despicable reverence for professional Darwinists are the professional Darwinists, themselves. It's no wonder that professional Darwinists so love, and consider it indispensable, at all costs, to have to themselves the reins on the power to subject children, through their compulsory government schools, to being regularly, defenselessly assaulted by the stultifying, brutalizing mental abuse that professional Darwinists love dishing out against their marks.

You're starting to froth again. Settle yourself and try to maintain some dignity.

 

[Northman]

The guy that stamps his feet while accusing another of frothing. This is so comical.