When Ordinary Science Fails to Explain

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

WOW mi B/ B , an excellent post.

In line with that, may I also post another case of where a scientist is revoking his own laws, once accepted as gospel to the thinking and analzing Medical Profession -- speaking of scientists and /engr. not needing to freely think or analyze as the Med Profession does, but just accept. snicker..

You , mi luv, is an excellet example of a scientist using free thinking.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Government panel says 'NO!' to PSA tests

Hear that sound? That's the death knell for the PSA test -- and it's about time too. This test has caused too many men to suffer too many emasculating and life-ruining side effects, with little to no benefits whatsoever.

My anti-PSA stance caused me to be dismissed as an alt-med kook years ago, but the truth always finds its way to the light sooner or later. Take a look at what just stepped into the light:

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is now urging a clean and permanent break from the PSA test.

The government panel is even giving the screening its lowest possible grade of "D," which means in medicine exactly what it did back in high school: You're a dummy if you get one.

Heck, if that PSA test was a student, he'd be the dumbest kid in class -- because this screening has flunked every single test you can think of.

In the 17 years since the PSA test became "THE" screening for men, we've seen some 2 million Americans treated for prostate cancer... but the disease's death rate hasn't budged an inch -- not out here in the real world, and not in the multiple trials looked at by the Task Force.

Naturally, oncologists and urologists won't take this one lying down. They've already said they're committed to PSA-ing everyone they can, with the American Urological Association calling the recommendation "a great disservice."

That just proves they're not interested in science -- only math, particularly the addition of dollars to their bank accounts from all those procedures. You get incontinence, impotence and an infection for a cancer that never needed treatment, while they get new Ferraris and beach homes.

What a deal... for them!

Well, the jig is up: You don't have to be a radical to say "NO" to the PSA test anymore, and you don't have to listen to any doc who tells you otherwise.

Listen to Dr. Richard Ablin instead. Last year, he called the PSA test "a hugely expensive public health disaster" and "hardly more effective than a coin toss."

He should know: He invented the PSA test.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI again, for those that continually accuse lrl' maufactures of 'fraud' may I remind you that the higher professions are not exempt either.

--> New Discovery Shakes the Foundation of Cancer Research
The Mayo Clinic recently turned the cancer research industry on its head when it found that important research published in 2009 had been fabricated. What's worse, it may wipe out 10 years of their own studies AND it's influenced the cancer care that doctors provide...

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/15/mayo-clinic

- ----- finds-massive-fraud ------in-cancer-research.aspx?e_cid=20111015_DNL_art_1


Can you believe this ?? snicker. So much for scientific proof. snicker snicker


Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[werleibr]

Judy,

You are correct on were I got most of my copy and paste. I did look at all other places to come up with a single use for the words in this forum. Generally the laws and Theory's are not proven wrong themselves, but the hypothesis' that comprise the theory's are at times proven wrong, they do research in that area and generate other hypothysis.
But Lets compair each area and you will see they state the same dang thing, you just use many defenitions. But it still shows that everyone here has been using the words incorrectly. They should have been utilizing Hypothysis.


Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse
1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)
2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).
3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.
1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)
2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).
3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).
4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].
5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).
6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).


Your thing about the guy having his theory proven wrong. It was not his theory that was proven wrong. He was trying to debunk the theory of global warming with his hypothesis' by going after the hypothesis' and data that show the theory of global warming. He ended up finding out that his hypothesis' were incorrect and that the theory of Global warming is at this point in time factual. So in short he never had a theory, only trying to debunk one.

See ya'll tomorrow.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

G'morning LADIES, gents: in line with copying and pasting basic definitions, --->

How to Explain the Difference Between Theory, Law, and a Fact

If you asked most people to define "theory", they might correctly say that it is a statement intended to explain a phenomenon. If you asked those same people, "how certain is a theory?" They might reply, "Well, it's just a theory." or "It's a guess." When a scientist speaks about a theory, he or she means something completely different.
A good definition could be like, "A scientific theory is a general statement intending to explain nature that is --> confirmed by all available evidence such that it can be used to predict new, as yet unobserved phenomena."

Stress that a law is not real. In the same sense that nature is not obliged to agree with our theories, it is not obliged to obey our laws. But, we still do not discount their utility. Stress that theories are larger than laws, and that "upgrading" a theory to a law would actually be a downgrade. The Theory of Relativity will never be the Law of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection will never be the Law of Evolution by Natural Selection. We know that Newton's Laws of motion are not, in fact, right. They break down when the objects are very small or moving very fast (relative to other objects). If your students go on to take a modern physics class at the college level, they will prove the inconsistencies (and, thus, the falsehood) within Newton's Laws. Why, then, do we keep them around? Because they are exceedingly good at predicting. They are so good, that engineers building skyscrapers need only consider them. One can even travel throughout the Solar System only considering them, but they are not correct. Note that many laws have not been shown to be false, such as the Schrodinger Equation, which predicts quantum behavior of particles, and Newton's Law of heating and cooling, which is a less specific statement of the laws of thermodynamics, which, in themselves, have never been

what makes up a theory. A theory is constructed most of all from facts. Secondly, theories contain laws, but laws mean very little without facts. Theories also contain 'logical inferences' . For example, one must infer that the derived laws actually predict the facts, along with many more basic epistemological inferences (which purport philosophical, rather than scientific issues). These talk about how we know what we know. Accumulating all of the previous, the scientist makes a general statement to explain all the evidence. Other scientists reaffirm the facts and use the theory to make predictions and obtain new facts.

So, I stand by my original statements.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[werleibr]

G'morning LADIES, gents: in line with copying and pasting basic definitions, --->

How to Explain the Difference Between Theory, Law, and a Fact

If you asked most people to define "theory", they might correctly say that it is a statement intended to explain a phenomenon. If you asked those same people, "how certain is a theory?" They might reply, "Well, it's just a theory." or "It's a guess." When a scientist speaks about a theory, he or she means something completely different.
A good definition could be like, "A scientific theory is a general statement intending to explain nature that is --> confirmed by all available evidence such that it can be used to predict new, as yet unobserved phenomena."

Stress that a law is not real. In the same sense that nature is not obliged to agree with our theories, it is not obliged to obey our laws. But, we still do not discount their utility. Stress that theories are larger than laws, and that "upgrading" a theory to a law would actually be a downgrade. The Theory of Relativity will never be the Law of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection will never be the Law of Evolution by Natural Selection. We know that Newton's Laws of motion are not, in fact, right. They break down when the objects are very small or moving very fast (relative to other objects). If your students go on to take a modern physics class at the college level, they will prove the inconsistencies (and, thus, the falsehood) within Newton's Laws. Why, then, do we keep them around? Because they are exceedingly good at predicting. They are so good, that engineers building skyscrapers need only consider them. One can even travel throughout the Solar System only considering them, but they are not correct. Note that many laws have not been shown to be false, such as the Schrodinger Equation, which predicts quantum behavior of particles, and Newton's Law of heating and cooling, which is a less specific statement of the laws of thermodynamics, which, in themselves, have never been

what makes up a theory. A theory is constructed most of all from facts. Secondly, theories contain laws, but laws mean very little without facts. Theories also contain 'logical inferences' . For example, one must infer that the derived laws actually predict the facts, along with many more basic epistemological inferences (which purport philosophical, rather than scientific issues). These talk about how we know what we know. Accumulating all of the previous, the scientist makes a general statement to explain all the evidence. Other scientists reaffirm the facts and use the theory to make predictions and obtain new facts.

So, I stand by my original statements.

Don Jose de La Mancha

And I am asking we use Theory in the scientific way when asking to talk about the workings of an LRL. You really want to talk about the hypothisis, not the theory.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~werleibr~

And I am asking we use Theory in the scientific way when asking to talk about the workings of an LRL. You really want to talk about the hypothisis, not the theory.

Can you tell use what the theory or hypothisis of LRL’s is?...Can you tell us what Scientific laws apply to LRL's?..Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

The theory of Electricity
http://www.qsl.net/vu2msy/elementary_theory_of_electricity.htm
http://www.elec-toolbox.com/theory.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_theory_of_electricity
http://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/more_stuff/E&M_Hist.html

Looks like we live in the big world of the theory of electricity..

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI Judy luv, I have to admit negative on that also. My imagination could fill it in, but it probably would not be correct - I think - .

Passa me some more wine, and while you are up, toss another log on the fire. and turn the light down lower - so that I can watch the full moon and stars through the picture window.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[gallileo60]

The mind, or brain is just an interface to an external quantum stimulus input. It's not 'mind over 'matter', but actually 'matter over matter'. Only the first one in another state.

Uh, yeah.....What the hell is an "external quantum stimulus"

 

[aarthrj3811]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="external+quantum+stimulus&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
Results 1 - 10 of about 28,100