Assumptions

[IBDaMann]

yes. fascism.

Of course. It's why everyone normally associates NASA with Mussolini.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You are just describing yourself.

A hypothesis stems from a theory. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.
A theory is an explanatory argument.
An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Non-falsifiable theories are not theories of science. They remain circular arguments, and if arguments extend from them, they become religions. Only religions use supporting evidence. Science does not.

The Church of the Big Bang is a religion.
The Church of the Continuum is a religion.
The Church of Creation is a religion.
The Church of Abiogenesis is a religion.
The Church of Evolution is a religion.
The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified due to an internal consistency problem and due to exceptions found.
The Church of the Ozone Hole is a religion.
The Church of Green is a religion.
The Church of Global Warming is a religion.
The Church of Covid is a religion.
The Church of Perversion is a religion.
The Church of No God is a religion.
The Church of Karl Marx is a religion.

Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable.
Science does not use proxy 'data'. Such 'data' is not raw data. It is contrived.
Science does not use cooked 'data'. Such 'data' is not raw data. It is contrived.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. There is nothing special about carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, nitrogen gas, etc.

You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You cannot trap heat. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You cannot trap light. You are ignoring Planck's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot compare two systems as the same system. That's a false equivalence fallacy.
You cannot use anything but unbiased raw data in statistical math. That data MUST be published, the variance justified and declared, and selection from the dataset MUST be by randN. The selected data MUST be normalized by paired randR. The margin of error value MUST be calculated and MUST accompany the summary.

You deny science.
You deny mathematics.
You deny logic.
You deny philosophy.

Redefinition fallacies.
Omniscience fallacy.
Circular argument fallacies (fundamentalism).

So many words to avoid admitting you were wrong. Hypothesis comes first.

Wow, you are so lost up your own ass it's astounding.

"A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that can be tested by further investigation. A theory is a well-supported explanation of observations. A scientific law is a statement that summarizes the relationship between variables. An experiment is a controlled method of testing a hypothesis." (SOURCE)


C'mon dude, this is shit they teach LITTLE KIDS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASS. Wow. You are a moron.

 

[IBDaMann]

Hypothesis comes first.

Incorrect. You have to have a model from which to derive the hypothesis. Wow, you are so lost up your own ass it's astounding. (by the way, I plagiarized that, but I forgot who the brilliant author was).

"A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that can be tested by further investigation.

Nope. So you really do find it beneath you to learn the scientific method and to stop wasting bandwidth.

Your description of an hypothesis omits "derived from a falsifiable model". Please insist otherwise so I can rake you over the coals.

A theory is a well-supported explanation of observations.

Sorry. A theory can be hairbrained and totally unsupported.

A scientific law is a statement that summarizes the relationship between variables.

Damn! You are 0 for 4. Why couldn't you have just accepted what Into the Night was teaching you FOR FREE even though you so totally do NOT deserve it.

A law is a predictive model that is asserted and assumed by sheer overwhelming supporting observation without a single falsifying observation.

An experiment is a controlled method of testing a hypothesis.

You get partial credit. An experiment is an attempt to show a model/theory false. This is done by first carefully deriving an hypothesis. Then an experiment is designed to test the hypothesis (as you correctly indicated) and if the results show that the hypothesis is false, the model has been falsified. If the hypothesis holds, the model survives to the next round of whatever the scientific method has in store.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Incorrect.

No, you science illiterate, you start with a hypothesis and then test it. If it stands up to repeated tests over and over and over again it becomes a theory.

Geez you and Into The Night are two science morons.

WHY DO YOU THINK I GAVE THE LINK????

You have to have a model from which to derive the hypothesis. Wow, you are so lost up your own ass it's astounding. (by the way, I plagiarized that, but I forgot who the brilliant author was).

You don't have a clue what "theory" means in science. Just shut up. It's painful to hear you say shit.

Sorry. A theory can be hairbrained and totally unsupported.

Not the technical definition. Jesus, people learn this in elementary school. God. What is your malfunction?

Moron.

 

[IBDaMann]

You assumed APL meant the Sun.

No, you silly little drug-binger, you. I assumed APL meant "A Programming Language". What was I thinking? Oh yeah, I was thinking "A Programming Language".

Another of your many mistakes,

I haven't made any mistakes. You'd have to be a drug-binger to think I made mistakes. Are you on some kind of whacked-out spiritual journey or something?

including thanking yourself with your socks.

I bet you used your keen deductive reasoning to figure that out, didn't you? You probably did so while drug-binging to reproduce your non-reproducible "experience" instead of cracking opening a book.

What if the star in question is Vega?

I was allowed to determine the star in question and I picked the sun for convenience. If I had instead picked Vega, I would have answered "a little over a quarter century" ... but I didn't choose it, specifically because I knew that picking the sun would piss you off. Too funny. Fuck you.

 

[IBDaMann]

No, you science illiterate, you start with a hypothesis and then test it.

So, will you go on record right here and now stating that hypotheses precede the models from which they are derived ... or at least go on record as stating that hypotheses are not derived from models, especially not those pesky null hypotheses? ... or are you too cowardly to go on the record because you know that you're just digging a hole for yourself?

If it stands up to repeated tests over and over and over again it becomes a theory.

So your position is that if sufficient supporting evidence is accumulated, then an hypothesis ascends into a model/theory? Actually, please answer this question first. Feel free to embellish as needed.

p.s. I notice that you still have not walked me through your process for verifying average global temperatures for specific dates in the distant, unobserved past. Why have you not helped me explain to my children how they can verify your claims? Would you please throw that answer into your next post as well. We'll sort of knock all of it out in one glorious post.

 

[Into the Night]

You are literally the first person in the history of the internet to call Hubble's Law a religion

Because Hubble's 'law' makes too many rash assumptions.

 

[Into the Night]

Science is your religion. Climate deniers are anathema. What's interesting is your whole tranny dogma isnt based on science in the least just like your approach to the covid plandemic.

No. He denies science. He has so far denied the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, Planck's law, Maxwell's law, Einstein's laws, and Newton's law, and Kepler's law.

 

[Into the Night]

that has nothing to do with what you asked me.

You asked me to explain why I thought hydrogen was createded 13 billion years ago, and what the age of the Big Bang was based on.

I gave you detailed answers to your questions. You just didn't like the answers and decided to pout.

You gave random numbers and repeated your scripture again. That isn't an answer, dude.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No, you silly little drug-binger, you. I assumed APL meant "A Programming Language"….

That’s because your mental illness is your weakness.

 

[IBDaMann]

You asked me to explain why I thought hydrogen was createded 13 billion years ago, and what the age of the Big Bang was based on.

Actually, I specifically asked you why you believe what you believe. It was you who abandoned all science and began spouting your religious dogma. I never said that you are not somehow allowed to hold the religious beliefs that you hold, but then you committed a foul and began asserting that your religious beliefs were the state of modern science. For that you deserve to be mocked and deserve to have it revealed that you have no idea what science even is and that you have no business chiming in on such discussions.

Would you care for a do-over and tell JPP a little bit more about your beliefs, and why you believe what you believe, or are you going to close out the discussion by preaching your religious gibberish? Either one is fine.

 

[Into the Night]

Science is not a religion. NASA didn't put mankind on the Moon with prayer. The medical needles and drugs used by drug addicts were not religious items; they are tools created by science.

Science is not a government agency. Science isn't 'tools'.
Medical needles and drugs are created by engineering, not science.
Going to the Moon was engineering, not science.

 

[Into the Night]

I wouldn't use that wording wrt Cypress. It's not science he worships. He worships the pre-packaged speculations of others that alleviate him from having to think. He simply declares speculation as sacred truth, gives himself a warm-fuzzy assurance that he must be correct, and then he mocks those who do not worship as he does.

I am an atheist; I therefore don't worship any speculative dogma. I have only science, math, logic, direct observation and economics models (when appropriate) as tools for discussion. Cypress discards any science that requires him to think and substitutes it for his prepackaged dogma.

I am a Christian. I do worship by faith. I easily recognize when someone like Cypress is making a religious statement, based on faith, and manufactures 'data' to try to prove his faith (fundamentalism). Of all religious people, fundamentalists are the worst, for they are total blind to everything else but their religion.

 

[IBDaMann]

That’s because your mental illness is your weakness.

You silly little drug-binger, you! Your brain stem believes intelligence is a mental illness while believing that your drug-induced coma is somehow normal. But don't worry about it, don't tax the brain stem, just focus on remaining comfortable.

 

[Into the Night]

I didn't say science is a religion i said it's his religion.

Science is not a religion. He utterly denies and discards theories of science.
There is no Church of Science.

He believes in the Church of No God, the Church of Green (and all it's stems, including the Church of Global Warming), and the Church of Karl Marx.
He believes in the Church of the Big Bang, the Church of Evolution, and the Church of Abiogenesis. He is a fundamentalist in all of his religions.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Actually, I specifically asked you why you believe what you believe. It was you who abandoned all science and began spouting your religious dogma. I never said that you are not somehow allowed to hold the religious beliefs that you hold, but then you committed a foul and began asserting that your religious beliefs were the state of modern science. For that you deserve to be mocked and deserve to have it revealed that you have no idea what science even is and that you have no business chiming in on such discussions.

Would you care for a do-over and tell JPP a little bit more about your beliefs, and why you believe what you believe, or are you going to close out the discussion by preaching your religious gibberish? Either one is fine.

RQAA

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Science is not a religion. He utterly denies and discards theories of science.

Bullshit.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You silly little drug-binger, you! Your brain stem believes intelligence is a mental illness while believing that your drug-induced coma is somehow normal. But don't worry about it, don't tax the brain stem, just focus on remaining comfortable.

You’re a psycho and proven liar, Sybil. Say what you want, but I doubt anyone on this forum thinks you are a sane, rational father with a good job.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I am a Christian. I do worship by faith. I easily recognize when someone like Cypress is making a religious statement, based on faith, and manufactures 'data' to try to prove his faith (fundamentalism). Of all religious people, fundamentalists are the worst, for they are total blind to everything else but their religion.

Bullshit. You lie all the time, Sybil. How can you be both a Christian and a liar?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Science is not a government agency. Science isn't 'tools'.
Medical needles and drugs are created by engineering, not science.
Going to the Moon was engineering, not science.

RQAA