Originally posted by twhiteheadDon't play childish games.
Are you going to answer the question, or just continue making a fool of yourself?
You challenged the easily verifiable FACT of large-scale chemical spraying, against such ridiculousness I posted only one link which obliterated your claimed ignorance, Harvard's website discussing the very thing you claim is a fringe belief.
The embarrassment is all yours.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHExactly what chemicals do you think your video buddy are in the 'man made spray' and for what purpose? He has an image of a helicopter which in the image is clearly NOT spraying AND the contrails are 30,000 feet high so just exactly how does your video buddy think that was done? You know of a helicopter that can fly that high?
Don't play childish games.
You challenged the easily verifiable FACT of large-scale chemical spraying, against such ridiculousness I posted only one link which obliterated your claimed ignorance, Harvard's website discussing the very thing you claim is a fringe belief.
The embarrassment is all yours.
Originally posted by humyScience--- which for unknown reasons eludes you as a concept--- is based on theories.
not via conspiracy theories but rather via the evidence and/or logic. Look up science in the dictionary.
They're either borne out with observation, experimentation and testing... or they're not.
Your continued insistence in inserting "conspiracy theory" into the conversation is more a sign of your lack of an argument than any insight you feign.
Stick with the facts.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou mean 'facts' as told by your video? That is your proof? Proof would go beyond seeing contrails and going all the way to sampling the contrails to find evidence of some kind of toxic chemicals. And BTW, are you now accepting the fact there are satellites and GPS is not run from ground stations?
Science--- which for unknown reasons eludes you as a concept--- is based on theories.
They're either borne out with observation, experimentation and testing... or they're not.
Your continued insistence in inserting "conspiracy theory" into the conversation is more a sign of your lack of an argument than any insight you feign.
Stick with the facts.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNO NO, it isn't correct to say science is "based on theories". Scientific method requires the creation of theories to be tested BUT science is "based on" empirical evidence and/or logical reasoning without which it wouldn't be science. The "theories" are what is to be tested by the evidence and/or logical. Mere theory is NOT what the scientific facts are "based on" nor is scientific method merely "based on" the creation of theories because scientific method required evidence to test those theories else it isn't scientific method. Theories that have been proven wrong by the evidence are rejected by science and those theories that have no evidence for or against them are not assumed by science to be true thus science is NOT "based on" those theories. As for those theories proven correct, they are both theory and proven scientific fact thus part of known science but then they are not merely theories or wild speculation (like most conspiracy theories) but rather are 'facts', and specifically facts based on the evidence, NOT mere theory so it is still incorrect to say science is based on theories. It would be 'more' correct, albeit still rather inaccurate and for several other reasons (which I will list on request) TOTALLY inadequate as part of a definition of science, to say "science is based on FACTS" (just for starters, science often deals with probabilities rather than 'facts' ),
Science--- ...--- is based on theories.
Your continued insistence in inserting "conspiracy theory" into the conversation...
Your OP is about a conspiracy theory. You asserted in your OP
"Academics have joined with the government in the campaign to convince the gullible public that chemtrail/geoengineering is a good thing.".
-that IS a conspiracy theory, right? You are the one who brought it up, not me. So I don't understand your complaint. If you don't want any talk about conspiracy theory in this thread, why on earth did you make your OP about a conspiracy theory?
Originally posted by humyNO NO, it isn't correct to say science is "based on theories". Scientific method requires the creation of theories to be tested BUT science is "based on" empirical evidence and/or logical reasoning without which it wouldn't be science. The "theories" are what is to be tested by the evidence and/or logical.
NO NO, it isn't correct to say science is "based on theories". Scientific method requires the creation of theories to be tested BUT science is "based on" empirical evidence and/or logical reasoning without which it wouldn't be science. The "theories" are what is to be tested by the evidence and/or logical. Mere theory is NOT what the scientific facts are ...[text shortened]... t conspiracy theory in this thread, why on earth did you make your OP about a conspiracy theory?
Right.
So when I say that science is based upon theories and then you claim that a scientific method requires the creation of theories, somehow that’s… different?
Mere theory is NOT what the scientific facts are "based on" nor is scientific method merely "based on" the creation of theories because scientific method required evidence to test those theories else it isn't scientific method.
No one said that science is made up entirely of theory, so it is unclear why you would be arguing against a point which wasn’t made.
Theories that have been proven wrong by the evidence are rejected by science and those theories that have no evidence for or against them are not assumed by science to be true thus science is NOT "based on" those theories.
Theories have been rejected, but--- wait for it--- so have facts.
Facts which went through the laborious and painstaking vetting process which were later rescinded… on account of the questioning of given facts, the formation of theories which would better and more accurately describe the scenario, testing of the new model, verification of the data, repetition of the experiments used and eventual acceptance as a new fact.
As for those theories proven correct, they are both theory and proven scientific fact thus part of known science but then they are not merely theories or wild speculation (like most conspiracy theories) but rather are 'facts', and specifically facts based on the evidence, NOT mere theory so it is still incorrect to say science is based on theories.
You seem confused on your nomenclature.
If it is a fact, it has moved from theory into fact.
It is not both.
Bringing “conspiracy theory” into the mix doesn’t come close to any kind of reasonable equivalent.
ANY theory will be, by nature, speculative.
Adding the pejorative “wild” serves only to show bias.
It would be 'more' correct, albeit still rather inaccurate and for several other reasons (which I will list on request) TOTALLY inadequate as part of a definition of science, to say "science is based on FACTS" (just for starters, science often deals with probabilities rather than 'facts' ),
It absolutely would not be inaccurate to claim that science is based on facts, with the understanding that ‘fact’ is considered with the caveat: to the best of our current knowledge.
Your OP is about a conspiracy theory. You asserted in your OP
"Academics have joined with the government in the campaign to convince the gullible public that chemtrail/geoengineering is a good thing.".
-that IS a conspiracy theory, right? You are the one who brought it up, not me. So I don't understand your complaint. If you don't want any talk about conspiracy theory in this thread, why on earth did you make your OP about a conspiracy theory?
So we’re back to redefining the term “conspiracy theory,” it appears.
The use of the term is very specific: it is employed whenever one wishes to dismiss a topic out of hand without any examination of the underlying support, i.e., evidence for a topic’s discussion.
No more, no less.
No one seriously considers history or current events clear of conspiracy, as though all players in all situations of government are free of any ulterior motives or agendas which are not disclosed to the general public.
No one seriously considers all human endeavors past and present as nothing more than a long list of straightforward efforts, as though all motivations should be seen as prima facie honest, without guile.
History and current events have taught and continue to teach us otherwise: people lie.
People conspire.
Hold, hold, sirs; for there is no reason that you should take revenge for the wrongs that love doth us;
and observe that love and war are all one;
and, as in war it is lawful to use sleights and stratagems to overcome the enemy, so, in amorous strifes and competencies, impostures and juggling-tricks are held for good, to attain to the wished end, so it be not in prejudice and dishonour of the thing affected.
As Don Quixote’s dictum teaches, man has taken great pains to flesh out the first three words of the phrase, continually and eternally pushing the envelope on acceptable behavior when in pursuit of the wished end.
Therefore, to dismiss out of hand any thoughts, i.e., theories, regarding the factual existence of conspiracy by any group of people isn’t merely naÏve, for an educated person such insistence is tacit approval of the actions.
What the OP stated is decidedly NOT a theory, let alone a conspiracy theory.
Some within academia and some within the US government have gone on the record to put their support behind chemtrailing and geoengineering… after years of publically denying the same has taken place.
They’ve denied its existence so much, they’ve conditioned the gullible to knee-jerk their parroted “conspiracy theory” every time the topic is raised--- even when they’re telling you they’re doing it!
7 edits
So when I say that science is based upon theories and then you claim that a scientific method requires the creation of theories, somehow that’s… different?
correct, scientific method is based on the evidence to test the truth or falsity or probability of theories and that requires (as opposed to being based on) first creating some theories to test; "requires" does not mean "based on".
No one said that science is made up entirely of theory,
I didn't say that. I said "based on". Can't you read?
Theories have been rejected, but--- wait for it--- so have facts.
No, they haven't. Facts are what is proven to be the case so if a theory is disproved then it was never proved and thus never was a fact that it was true.
If it is a fact, it has moved from theory into fact.
No, it is still a theory but a proven theory therefore also a fact. An example is the "theory of evolution"; it is still correctly called a "theory" long after it is proven; why do you think that is? It is because it is both a theory and a fact.
It absolutely would not be inaccurate to claim that science is based on facts,
That depends on which science and context; excluding pure mathematics which never deals with mere probabilities, science often deals with probabilities and uncertainty as opposed to solid proven facts. Where scientific conclusions are made based on what is probability true but not proven true, it isn't based on facts but probabilities. The science of statistics (which just by pure coincidence I am currently intensively researching) is a possible example of that although it might not be pedantically totally correct to say it is "based on" probability because you could argue, perhaps a bit confusingly, that statistics is "based on" the 'facts' about probabilities! -although perhaps that is just playing with semantics .
ANY theory will be, by nature, speculative.
Even when it is proven?
What the OP stated is decidedly NOT a theory, let alone a conspiracy theory.
I don't know who you are trying to kid;
" Academics have joined with the government in the campaign to convince the gullible public that chemtrail/geoengineering is a good thing. "
-this is clearly a theory and a conspiracy theory by any English dictionary meaning of the terms.
Originally posted by humyAnd it will remain a conspiracy theory till someone flies up 30,000 feet where the contrails are and samples the actual cloud and then test for toxins or whatever. Till then the whole thing is not even a theory, it is baseless speculation.So when I say that science is based upon theories and then you claim that a scientific method requires the creation of theories, somehow that’s… different?
correct, scientific method is based on the evidence to test the truth or falsity or probability of theories and that requires (as opposed to being based on) first creating some ...[text shortened]... this is clearly a theory and a conspiracy theory by any English dictionary meaning of the terms.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCan you clarify what the theory is here? What is being explained by it and how was it rigorously tested/challenged?
[b]NO NO, it isn't correct to say science is "based on theories". Scientific method requires the creation of theories to be tested BUT science is "based on" empirical evidence and/or logical reasoning without which it wouldn't be science. The "theories" are what is to be tested by the evidence and/or logical.
Right.
So when I say that science is base ...[text shortened]... piracy theory” every time the topic is raised--- even when they’re telling you they’re doing it![/b]
This thread is perpetuating a general misunderstand of what a "theory" really represents in scientific terms. Lots of people like to reject ideas because they're "just a theory" but scientific theories have generally been repeatedly tested and withstand rigorous scrutiny. Scientific theories are necessarily founded on empirical evidence (otherwise it's just speculation). Scientific theory is not speculation.
It can be considered a legitimate scientific theory as long as it has been genuinely tested, is reasonably falsifiable, and is congruent with existing knowledge. Does your theory meet this criteria?
1 edit
Originally posted by humycorrect, scientific method is based on the evidence to test the truth or falsity or probability of theories and that requires (as opposed to being based on) first creating some theories to test; "requires" does not mean "based on".So when I say that science is based upon theories and then you claim that a scientific method requires the creation of theories, somehow that’s… different?
correct, scientific method is based on the evidence to test the truth or falsity or probability of theories and that requires (as opposed to being based on) first creating some ...[text shortened]... this is clearly a theory and a conspiracy theory by any English dictionary meaning of the terms.
I know that some of the posters herein are not English-speaking as a matter of course, so that might be the hang-up for the lack of understanding.
Nonetheless, if something is required prior to the formation otherwise, it is not only technically correct, it is logically correct that the first thing is the object upon which the rest is based.
base
noun
1.the bottom support of anything; that on which a thing stands or rests
2.a fundamental principle or groundwork; foundation; basis
In the case of a scientific fact, long before any other aspect of any method is employed, a theory or a conjecture is suggested or asked, thus, the entirety of all known scientific facts were without exception at one time or another, a theory.
I didn't say that. I said "based on".
Actually, I said that.
You inexplicably blanched at the term.
Can't you read?
I think it's pretty obvious I am able to read.
Perhaps you meant to ask whether or not I can follow your convoluted expressions?
No, they haven't. Facts are what is proven to be the case so if a theory is disproved then it was never proved and thus never was a fact that it was true.
Really?
Ever hear of the torosaurus?
Brontosaurus?
Cholesterol's contributions to heart disease?
The exclusivity of water on earth?
The original estimate of human genes and the correlation between quantity and complexity?
How King Tut died?
How the expansion of the universe is slowing down?
How old the universe is?
And so on and so forth...
No, it is still a theory but a proven theory therefore also a fact. An example is the "theory of evolution"; it is still correctly called a "theory" long after it is proven; why do you think that is? It is because it is both a theory and a fact.
A proven theory is known as a fact.
In Science News' list of the most significant scientific revolutionary theories, not a single one of them can rightly be construed as fact, but rather, as the current working models... which replaced the previous current working models.
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/top-10-revolutionary-scientific-theories
Even when it is proven?
Let's take one from the list above: Lavoisier's Oxygen Theory of Combustion.
Among other points, what Lavoisier's work proved was what wasn't correct, i.e., he laid to rest the current working theory that the world was comprised of four elements.
That theory--- which was touted as fact--- had been in place since antiquity.
And evolution?
Come now: it's a physical impossibility which insults and demeans human intellect.
I don't know who you are trying to kid;
" Academics have joined with the government in the campaign to convince the gullible public that chemtrail/geoengineering is a good thing. "
-this is clearly a theory and a conspiracy theory by any English dictionary meaning of the terms.
Since I have already provided Harvard's link to their website specifically created for their solar geoengineering research program, which states the following:
Overarching goals
Produce research that advances solar geoengineering’s science and technology frontier, publishing high-impact papers, and disseminating ideas that are taken up by other researchers and government research programs.
Take an active stance on research with a unique mandate to develop new path-breaking technologies that might improve solar geoengineering’s effectiveness and reduce its risks.
Employ Harvard’s convening power to bring together scientists, environmental leaders, and government officials to discuss the technology and its governance.
Advance science and technology, assess efficacy and risks, and lay out governance options and social implications.
... where's the conspiracy again?
Originally posted by wildgrassCan you clarify what the theory is here? What is being explained by it and how was it rigorously tested/challenged?
Can you clarify what the theory is here? What is being explained by it and how was it rigorously tested/challenged?
This thread is perpetuating a general misunderstand of what a "theory" really represents in scientific terms. Lots of people like to reject ideas because they're "just a theory" but scientific theories have generally been repeatedly tested ...[text shortened]... ably falsifiable, and is congruent with existing knowledge. Does your theory meet this criteria?
Perhaps I missed it.
Who claimed there was a theory?
The OP was a true statement coupled with another true statement which then made an observation regarding the unusual activity.
If I were to proffer a theory--- which itself is based on nothing more than this limited scope of evidence--- I would suggest that chemtrails or other forms of geoengineering were employed to keep any satellite imagery from recording whatever happened in the area below the chemtrail coverage.
Since there is no repeating the day--- and we certainly do not see a repeating of the chemtrail coverage on any day prior to or since that day--- we can only apply greater scrutiny to the facts in order to ascertain who-what-where-why-and how...
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat is just an anecdote - akin to a true statement that my nephew started showing symptoms of autistic behavior just a few days after he was vaccinated. It may be true, but it's not evidence for or against anything.
Since there is no repeating the day--- and we certainly do not see a repeating of the chemtrail coverage on any day prior to or since that day--- we can only apply greater scrutiny to the facts in order to ascertain who-what-where-why-and how...
Coincidence? I think not. Before we figure out what was hiding under those chemtrails, lets figure out who-what-where-why and how someone gave that kid autism.