Rand FB (regarding SCOTUS): I Plan to Lead

[Origanalist]

I say shut it down, period. That joker has done enough damage to freedom and liberty already for one president. Fuck him.

 

[Son_of_Liberty90]

It didn't defy science. It was the best theory they had based on the observations at the time. Science is simply the study of things. Sometimes we completely figure things out, like Newtonian Laws, but 99% of science can be summed up in two words: best guess.

"Best guess" Really? I'm sure if Carl Sagan were alive he'd have a bit of disagreement with you there.

Heres a definition pulled from dictionary.com

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws

 

[ShaneEnochs]

"Best guess" Really? I'm sure if Carl Sagan were alive he'd have a bit of disagreement with you there.

Heres a definition pulled from dictionary.com

We could always see what Mr. Sagan actually said:

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.

 

[Son_of_Liberty90]

We could always see what Mr. Sagan actually said:

Nice parsing. This is the full quote:

Science is much more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking. This is central to its success. Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions. It counsels us to carry alternative hypotheses in our heads and see which ones best match the facts. It urges on us a fine balance between no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of everything — new ideas and established wisdom. We need wide appreciation of this kind of thinking. It works. It’s an essential tool for a democracy in an age of change. Our task is not just to train more scientists but also to deepen public understanding of science.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Nice parsing. This is the full quote:

Nothing about the full quote disproves anything that I've said so far. I don't even understand what you're disagreeing with me about at this point.

 

[Son_of_Liberty90]

Nothing about the full quote disproves anything that I've said so far. I don't even understand what you're disagreeing with me about at this point.

It's vastly different from what you were trying to argue I don't know how you're not seeing it. You were arguing "science" as some ambiguous methodology where everything is determined true is relative depending on the time period, and only agreed upon by consensus. That is not true, and you trying to parse the Sagan quote demonstrates it. That quote completely contradicts what you said about the heliocentric theory of the solar system back in the middle ages being "valid" because there was consensus. A minority using the right tools of the scientific method should be able to decimate any bogus scientific consensus declared by the majority i.e. Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, etc.

Do you need me to break down the quote line by line? How about "It urges on us a fine balance between no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of everything". Pretty much decimates any notion of consensus.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

It's vastly different from what you were trying to argue I don't know why you're not seeing it. You were arguing "science" as some ambiguous methodology where everything determined true is relative depending on the time period, and only agreed upon by consensus. That is not true, and you trying to parse the Sagan quote demonstrates it. That quote completely contradicts what you said about the heliocentric theory of the solar system back in the middle ages being "valid" because there was consensus. A minority using the right tools of the scientific method should be able to decimate any bogus scientific consensus declared by the majority i.e. Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, etc.

Do you need me to break down the quote line by line? How about "It urges on us a fine balance between no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of everything". Pretty much decimates any notion of consensus.

Science doesn't always just start with a question and end with an answer. Sometimes it can move from question to wrong answer to wrong answer to wrong answer to currently accepted answer. You can't say that earlier scientists weren't performing science just because they got it wrong. It was their best guess at the time based on the evidence that they gathered.

We don't even know what our universe is made of. In every mathematical simulation, there just isn't enough matter for galaxies to form. So our best guess right now is that there is invisible matter that not only can't be seen, but can't be touched either. We call it "dark matter" because we have no idea what it is or if it even exists. There's also another problem: not only is the universe expanding, but it is expanding at an accelerated rate. Our best guess? Dark energy. Can't see it, can't touch it, can't detect it. Want to know how much of this stuff would have to exist under our current understanding of astrophysics? The universe would need to be made of about 5% of stuff that we can actually see and know about. Just 5%. That means that all the stars and all the planets and all the nebulae in the entire universe makes up only 5% of the actual stuff in the universe. Dark matter (remember, this is something that we don't even know if it exists) would need to make up about 27%, and dark energy would make up the rest (68%).

This is science.

 

[Son_of_Liberty90]

You can't say that earlier scientists weren't performing science just because they got it wrong. It was their best guess at the time based on the evidence that they gathered.

That is correct, but they stifled science when they stifled debate. It took science by other individuals to prove the majority/consensus wrong.

We don't even know what our universe is made of. In every mathematical simulation, there just isn't enough matter for galaxies to form. So our best guess right now is that there is invisible matter that not only can't be seen, but can't be touched either. We call it "dark matter" because we have no idea what it is or if it even exists. There's also another problem: not only is the universe expanding, but it is expanding at an accelerated rate. Our best guess? Dark energy. Can't see it, can't touch it, can't detect it. Want to know how much of this stuff would have to exist under our current understanding of astrophysics? The universe would need to be made of about 5% of stuff that we can actually see and know about. Just 5%. That means that all the stars and all the planets and all the nebulae in the entire universe makes up only 5% of the actual stuff in the universe. Dark matter (remember, this is something that we don't even know if it exists) would need to make up about 27%, and dark energy would make up the rest (68%).

This is science.

Science doesn't always just start with a question and end with an answer. Sometimes it can move from question to wrong answer to wrong answer to wrong answer to currently accepted answer.

You're using examples of what cannot be known at this point in time to prove your point/definition. Of course we cannot know what exactly dark matter is or what is billions of light years away other than "best guesses", but I think you would agree we start to do less guesswork when we get closer to home i.e. the Earth. Studying tectonic activity, the weather, mammal metabolism, etc.

I know you're probably going to bring up quantum physics next, how we can't even know for sure what happens on earth, but as we continue to use the scientific method, we will get more accurate answers. Because science is after answers, the facts, truth.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

However, consensus does not and should not come into play here. Science goes by evidence, not consensus. Consensus silences dissent and debate, which has no place in science.

I don't understand what you're saying here. All science, unless it's a scientific law, is based on consensus. Our best guess right now is that dark matter and dark energy exists, even if we can't detect it in any way. There are other competing theories as well. One is that we have gravity wrong. It could be that the inverse square law doesn't work the way we think it does on galactic scales, just like classical physics doesn't work at quantum scales. There are a lot of scientists that believe that this might be true. However, the consensus among the astrophysics community is that it's probably dark matter and dark energy because it fills in some gaps that the galactic gravity theory doesn't. But the theory of dark matter and dark energy isn't perfect either. That's why a consensus is required.

Tomorrow, a completely new theory that fills in even more gaps may come out, and then the consensus will be that that theory is the correct one.

 

[Son_of_Liberty90]

I don't understand what you're saying here. All science, unless it's a scientific law, is based on consensus. Our best guess right now is that dark matter and dark energy exists, even if we can't detect it in any way. There are other competing theories as well. One is that we have gravity wrong. It could be that the inverse square law doesn't work the way we think it does on galactic scales, just like classical physics doesn't work at quantum scales. There are a lot of scientists that believe that this might be true. However, the consensus among the astrophysics community is that it's probably dark matter and dark energy because it fills in some gaps that the galactic gravity theory doesn't. But the theory of dark matter and dark energy isn't perfect either. That's why a consensus is required.

Tomorrow, a completely new theory that fills in even more gaps may come out, and then the consensus will be that that theory is the correct one.

You're still not getting it. Consensus does not determine what is true, only the theory, facts itself. It only takes one mind to find new evidence and prove consensus wrong. The "consensus" party can choose to integrate that new evidence into their paradigm, or shut it out, deem it a "non-issue."

 

[ShaneEnochs]

You're using examples of what cannot be known at this point in time to prove your point/definition. Of course we cannot know what exactly dark matter is or what is billions of light years away other than "best guesses", but I think you would agree we start to do less guesswork when we get closer to home i.e. the Earth. Studying tectonic activity, the weather, mammal metabolism, etc.

I know you're probably going to bring up quantum physics next, how we can't even know for sure what happens on earth, but as we continue to use the scientific method, we will get more accurate answers. Because science is after answers, the facts, truth.

Since you completely changed your post here, let me address this one. Let's talk something very down to earth. Right at it's center. Earth's core was long believed to be a solid ball of iron surrounded by a liquid sphere of liquid iron. The liquid iron swirling around the solid iron is what gives us our magnetic field. That has been the consensus of the geological community for about 80 years.

But oh wait! The tides are turning. New research shows that the inner core is actually a plasma that's about the same temperature as the sun. Geologists are starting to believe, based on the evidence, that this may be what is actually at the center of the Earth instead of a solid ball of iron. Scientific consensus at work.

 

[nikcers]

I don't understand what you're saying here. All science, unless it's a scientific law, is based on consensus. Our best guess right now is that dark matter and dark energy exists, even if we can't detect it in any way. There are other competing theories as well. One is that we have gravity wrong. It could be that the inverse square law doesn't work the way we think it does on galactic scales, just like classical physics doesn't work at quantum scales. There are a lot of scientists that believe that this might be true. However, the consensus among the astrophysics community is that it's probably dark matter and dark energy because it fills in some gaps that the galactic gravity theory doesn't. But the theory of dark matter and dark energy isn't perfect either. That's why a consensus is required.

Tomorrow, a completely new theory that fills in even more gaps may come out, and then the consensus will be that that theory is the correct one.

Science tells us what what we don't know. Knowing what you don't know is half the battle.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

You're still not getting it. Consensus does not determine what is true, only the theory, facts itself. It only takes one mind to find new evidence and prove consensus wrong. The "consensus" party can choose to integrate that new evidence into their paradigm, or shut it out, deem it a "non-issue."

Can you please fucking point out to me where I said consensus makes something true? I said we decide science by consensus. Our science isn't always true, it's just a stepping stone / a path on the way to the truth.

 

[nikcers]

Can you please fucking point out to me where I said consensus makes something true? I said we decide science by consensus. Our science isn't always true, it's just a stepping stone / a path on the way to the truth.

So you're fine with holding up what 95% of the country wants just because you want something else?

Believe it or not, over half the country holds an entirely different opinion than you do on this topic.

..

 

[ShaneEnochs]

..

Those three quotes mean something totally different in the context in which they were said. You're being very misleading.

In fact, I even said:

Equating politics, which is subjective by it's very nature, to science is pretty silly. I think you know that.

 

[nikcers]

Those three quotes mean something totally different in the context in which they were said. You're being very misleading.

In fact, I even said:

The problem is you are questioning Rand's motive as partisan when in fact he is actually doing the will of his constituents. You're the one misleading people or being disingenuous at best.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

The problem is you are questioning Rand's motive as partisan when in fact he is actually doing the will of his constituents. You're the one misleading people or being disingenuous at best.

President Obama thinks this is his chance to put an end to originalist interpretation of the Constitution. His last chance, in his last few months office.

I am not going to let him do it. There's too much at stake.

Will you join with me today in standing up to President Obama and the liberals in the Senate?

If you don't, it is clear what will happen.

I plan to lead the fight to stop them in the Senate.

Will you stand with me as I do everything I can to block President Obama’s attempt to silence the opinion of the American public?

Sounds to me more like he's trying to convince his constituents, rather than doing the will of his constituents. But what do I know?

 

[Origanalist]

Sounds to me more like he's trying to convince his constituents, rather than doing the will of his constituents. But what do I know?

Pretty much everything, you're a legend in your own mind.

 

[jllundqu]

How did this thread devolve into what science is and is not? Weren't we discussing SCOTUS?

Take your thread hijacking asses out and start your own thread. Stop ruining the op and subsequent discussion.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

...in other words, you have no knowldge of economics at all.

Alright, then let us gain knowledge.

Q1. Would you agree that people will tend to buy more of a good the lower the price, and less of a good the higher the price?

No, because that doesn't account for quality of a product. If I'm going to buy shoes, I'm not going to buy a $10 pair because I know that the quality is shit.

The question is about the demand for one and the same good (or at least equally serviceable goods*) at different prices.

*goods which are equally valuable to consumers, despite physical differences (e.g. any two 12oz cans of Pepsi: equally valuable, despite slight physical differences)