I have seriously amused myself. A real

In the context of this discussion, I post this video for your entertainment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbIv7W7rhx4

new shit has come to light

Wow,
discoveries are not debated? Most science is only added to?
Science news.org, say's mistakes in science is fairly common. They list some of the biggest blunders of the last 20 yrs. The opposite of what you claim Kabob.
Science news.org said scientists would not have it anyother way. Wrong findings push others to new research to find and fix mistakes.

I think that is not true. Or. at least not the correct way to decipher it.

TB40, you are fond of making claims but no evidence, thus basis is iffy.

It's difficult to argue with iffy stuff.

Wrong findings are the stuff of public and political arena, not science.

The two are conflated, which is a lot of the problem.

Argue with Science news.org
It is on their website. Maybe you can tell them Kabob science .org has it right.

quote:

Science news.org

Okay, this is the best I can come up with on short notice. (9 minutes)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/science-news/

Bias Rating: PRO-SCIENCE
Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Magazine
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

You say: Science News.org

I think this is what you are referring to.

I haven't yet found confirmation of what you say, but I'm still looking.

Your claim:

quote:

Science news.org, say's mistakes in science is fairly common.

Results of search on their website - search topic "mistakes in science are common".

https://www.sciencenews.org/?s...n+science+are+common

363 RESULTS

Here's one specifically:

https://www.sciencenews.org/ar...ous-results-mistakes

These are science’s Top 10 erroneous results.

Mistakes from the past demonstrate the reliability of science. (Interesting they would say that in the heading)

To err is human, which is really not a very good excuse.

And to err as a scientist is worse, of course, because depending on science is supposed to be the best way for people to make sure they’re right. But since scientists are human (most of them, anyway), even science is never free from error. In fact, mistakes are fairly common in science, and most scientists tell you they wouldn’t have it any other way. That’s because making mistakes is often the best path to progress. An erroneous experiment may inspire further experiments that not only correct the original error, but also identify new previously unsuspected truths.


===============================================

Remember, Science is a human endevor.

So, what part of what I said is not true Kabob?
You said you doubted it. You can apologize anytime now, you said you can admit when you are wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Wow,
discoveries are not debated? Most science is only added to?
Science news.org, say's mistakes in science is fairly common. They list some of the biggest blunders of the last 20 yrs. The opposite of what you claim Kabob.
Science news.org said scientists would not have it any other way. Wrong findings push others to new research to find and fix mistakes.

In effect, bothering to affirm your claims, in most part, IS an apology. At least it's giving credence and listening where due. I don't think apology is appropriate. But if it does any good, I apologize if you feel slandered in any way. That was not my intent.


Quote:
"The opposite of what you claim Kabob."

I don't think it's the opposite per your "opposite". I think we agree on some level.

Per your source, which has high credibility:

"Mistakes from the past demonstrate the reliability of science."

The flip side, the bias side, is to discredit science due to mistakes.

Name one human endeavor, aside from religious belief, where mistakes are not made?

Name one human endeavor, other than science, where mistakes are acknowledged, owned, and corrected?

Human endeavors that are corrected, acknowledged and owned? That has only to do with the ethics of the person. There are unethical scientists, the same as any other profession.
Scientific American
Naomi Oreskes
If you say science is right, your wrong.

I believe in science, but nothing is absolute.

quote:

There are unethical scientists, the same as any other profession.

Yea, the oil and gas industry, Rightist think tanks, the denier machine, hired them.

If you have proof, sure, but more than just your say so of rightest.
Harvard professor who studies dishonesty accused of fabricating data, is a favorite.
Tuskegee airmen
injecting cancer cells into patients
spraying bacteria over a city
willow brook
Those have been proven, and are some of the worst case scenarios.

quote:

If you have proof, sure, but more than just your say so of rightest.

What I said about the rightist denier/doubt machine is well documented, as well as the pseudo-science.

The FACT that it exists is an astounding clue.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

Stemming from the word "trust"; "doubters" as you say have basically claimed that scientists are lying and in cahoots with those who have a "doctrine", as you say. IMO, that a lie in and of itself, and it's based entirely on doctrine.

Your statement would be correct if you replaced the word “doubters” with the word “deniers”. And I agree that their belief that all the sciences are in cahoots and pulling the wool over our eyes is a crazy belief.

I use the term “doubter” to describe people like myself who believe the science, believe that the earth is warming at an alarming rate, and believe that mankind is most likely to blame.

What I doubt are the leaders who are fighting wars for oil while telling us to buy electric vehicles. Telling us to cut back, while they fly private jets. Telling us to go green, while they continue to pollute, despite having the money to be “greener than green”.

That, that I simply cannot understand.



(And I know that you said that skepticism is not only allowed, but also encouraged, but I want you to watch how long it takes for someone to call me a denier.)

What ever happened to that "Ozone Hole" in the upper atmosphere tied to excessive man made florol carbons.
Due to compressed chemicals in spray cans and legacy AC compressive gasses.
Does it still exist? I know it has been decreasing.
Was quite the topic of discussion a decade or more ago.

EZ

quote:

Originally posted by eezridr:
What ever happened to that "Ozone Hole" in the upper atmosphere tied to excessive man made florol carbons.
Due to compressed chemicals in spray cans and legacy AC compressive gasses.
Does it still exist? I know it has been decreasing.
Was quite the topic of discussion a decade or more ago.

EZ

The world cut way back on the chemicals that aggravate it. You know, science.

OK Jason, I'll take your word for it and accept the correction as to the difference in doubter and denier.

I agree with your self-assessment and ID.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

Stemming from the word "trust"; "doubters" as you say have basically claimed that scientists are lying and in cahoots with those who have a "doctrine", as you say. IMO, that a lie in and of itself, and it's based entirely on doctrine.

Your statement would be correct if you replaced the word “doubters” with the word “deniers”. And I agree that their belief that all the sciences are in cahoots and pulling the wool over our eyes is a crazy belief.

I use the term “doubter” to describe people like myself who believe the science, believe that the earth is warming at an alarming rate, and believe that mankind is most likely to blame.

What I doubt are the leaders who are fighting wars for oil while telling us to buy electric vehicles. Telling us to cut back, while they fly private jets. Telling us to go green, while they continue to pollute, despite having the money to be “greener than green”.

That, that I simply cannot understand.



(And I know that you said that skepticism is not only allowed, but also encouraged, but I want you to watch how long it takes for someone to call me a denier.)