Shade of Chemtrails

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]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".
I know that some of the posters herein are not English-speaking as a matter of course, so that might be the han ...[text shortened]... ut governance options and social implications.[/quote]
... where's the conspiracy again?[/b]

In the case of a scientific fact, long before any other aspect of any method is employed, a theory or a conjecture is suggested

right, but its truth/falsity/probability is based on the evidence, without which it isn't science. In my opinion, it is just too misleading to say "science is based on theories" because I for one think that makes it sound like we can dispense with the evidence and have the said 'science' based on just unproven theories! This is why I strongly object to the statement that science is "based on theories".

Really?
Ever hear of ...
Cholesterol's contributions to heart disease?

any disproved theory like that one or any theory that didn't even ever have any evidence to support it like that one was NEVER a 'fact'. It was NEVER a fact that cholesterol contributes to heart disease or that the Earth is flat.

the current working models... which replaced the previous current working models.

often neither model is 'fact'.

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---

whether it was "touted as fact" is irrelevant; it was never a fact.

And evolution?
it's a physical impossibility

how is evolution "a physical impossibility"?

... where's the conspiracy again?

" the campaign to convince the gullible public that chemtrail/geoengineering is a good thing. " -this is apparently your conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by humy

In the case of a scientific fact, long before any other aspect of any method is employed, a theory or a conjecture is suggested

right, but its truth/falsity/probability is based on the evidence, without which it isn't science. In my opinion, it is just too misleading to say "science is based on theories"; it makes it sound like we can dis ...[text shortened]... lic that chemtrail/geoengineering is a good thing. " -this is apparently your conspiracy theory.

right, but its truth/falsity/probability is based on the evidence, without which it isn't science. In my opinion, it is just too misleading to say "science is based on theories"; it makes it sound like we can dispense with the evidence and have based on just unproven theories! This is why I object to saying it is "based on theories".
And, sometimes--- certainly not most of the time, but often enough--- the evidence was either incomplete, shoddy or in some fashion or another, misapplied.
Humans.

any disproved theory like that one or any theory that or any theory that didn't even ever have any evidence to support it like that one was NEVER a 'fact'.
Couldn't agree more.
But that doesn't prevent some from within the ranks of science to declare them as such.

how is evolution "a physical impossibility"?
You may wish to start another thread on this one.

" the campaign to convince the gullible public that chemtrail/geoengineering is a good thing. " -this is apparently your conspiracy theory.
Which part, exactly?
The "campaign"?
The "gullible public"?
You'll need to be more specific.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]right, but its truth/falsity/probability is based on the evidence, without which it isn't science. In my opinion, it is just too misleading to say "science is based on theories"; it makes it sound like we can dispense with the evidence and have based on just unproven theories! This is why I object to saying it is "based on theories".
And, sometimes ...[text shortened]...
Which part, exactly?
The "campaign"?
The "gullible public"?
You'll need to be more specific.[/b]

And, sometimes--- certainly not most of the time, but often enough--- the evidence was either incomplete, shoddy or in some fashion or another, misapplied.
Humans.

that just means it was never real science and never fact.

But that doesn't prevent some from within the ranks of science to declare them as such.

that doesn't change the fact they were never fact.

Which part, exactly?

" Academics have joined with the government in the campaign to convince the gullible public that chemtrail/geoengineering is a good thing. "
this statement as a WHOLE is of your conspiracy theory and just one or two words of that statement wouldn't be an assertion thus wouldn't make sense. The implied conspiracy here is that academics and government are trying to deceive the public (for what possible motive in this case I cannot imagine)

Originally posted by humy
In my opinion, it is just too misleading to say "science is based on theories" because I for one think that makes it sound like we can dispense with the evidence and have the said 'science' based on just unproven theories! This is why I strongly object to the statement that science is "based on theories"..

Scientific theories are built using facts. They explain/interpret the available empirical evidence. They are accurate and well-substantiated accounts of the real world. Thus, facts and theories are not independent from one another. You snuck in "unproven" into that sentence, but theories can have a range of strengths depending on the supportive evidence. Theories don't become facts.

It appears that what we're discussing is neither theory or fact. It is simply conjecture.

Originally posted by humy

And, sometimes--- certainly not most of the time, but often enough--- the evidence was either incomplete, shoddy or in some fashion or another, misapplied.
Humans.

that just means it was never real science and never fact.

But that doesn't prevent some from within the ranks of science to declare them as such.

that ...[text shortened]... rnment are trying to deceive the public (for what possible motive in this case I cannot imagine)

Ah...
so you're saying we shouldn't take their word for it without hard data which is subject to peer review on the topic of what is being sprayed from airplanes?

I agree.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Scientific theories are built using facts. They explain/interpret the available empirical evidence. They are accurate and well-substantiated accounts of the real world. Thus, facts and theories are not independent from one another. You snuck in "unproven" into that sentence, but theories can have a range of strengths depending on the supportive evidence. T ...[text shortened]... ts.

It appears that what we're discussing is neither theory or fact. It is simply conjecture.

Scientific theories are built using facts.

Not neccessrily because a theory may initially be based on probabilities or even wild guess work and then later proved or disproved. I will give example on request.

They explain/interpret the available empirical evidence

Again, Not necessarily; for scientific theories about pure mathematics or scientific theories based on pure deduction (like some I am currently working on ) this is not the case but they may still be perfectly correct and possible to prove via pure deduction.

They are accurate and well-substantiated accounts of the real world.

Newton's laws of gravity is an example of a proven theory (so it is a "well-substantiated" fact) but is under some conditions not entirely accurate; in this case because it is incomplete because, for example, it doesn't fully explain the orbit of Mercury (but relativity does because it is more complete).

Thus, facts and theories are not independent from one another.

who said they are "independent"? Certainly not me.

Theories don't become facts.

So the theory the Earth is round hasn't become a fact?
Some theories become facts and some don't.

Originally posted by humy

Scientific theories are built using facts.

Not neccessrily because a theory may initially be based on probabilities or even wild guess work and then later proved or disproved. I will give example on request.

They explain/interpret the available empirical evidence

Again, Not necessarily; for scientific theories abou ...[text shortened]... the theory the Earth is round hasn't become a fact?
Some theories become facts and some don't.

Newton's laws of gravity is an example of a proven theory (so it is a "well-substantiated" fact) but is under some conditions not entirely accurate; in this case because it is incomplete because, for example, it doesn't fully explain the orbit of Mercury (but relativity does because it is more complete).
Well-substantiated?
I must have missed where Newton's "Law of Gravitation" was established.
Clearly, it has been widely touted as accepted, but I haven't seen the actual proof of it.
It is one of four fundamental forces which behaves nothing like the other three, and 100% of its "proof" is theoretical: we never see it at play in real life in real time.
The fact that we openly acknowledge that it is not accurate and yet we don't reject or improve it with correction says quite a bit.

So the theory the Earth is round hasn't become a fact?
Some theories become facts and some don't.
Humy, please.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It is one of four fundamental forces which behaves nothing like the other three, and 100% of its "proof" is theoretical: we never see it at play in real life in real time.

So you have never noticed that things fall?
Take your meds. Then move this thread over to the 'totally delusional' forum.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Newton's laws of gravity is an example of a proven theory (so it is a "well-substantiated" fact) but is under some conditions not entirely accurate; in this case because it is incomplete because, for example, it doesn't fully explain the orbit of Mercury (but relativity does because it is more complete).
Well-substantiated?
I must have missed wher ...[text shortened]... th is round hasn't become a fact?
Some theories become facts and some don't.[/b]
Humy, please.[/b]

Try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you have never noticed that things fall?
Take your meds. Then move this thread over to the 'totally delusional' forum.

I had similar thoughts about those latest assertions of his.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
and 100% of its "proof" is theoretical: .

Now you speak in self-contradictions; wildly by far by any sensible definitions, actual "proof" isn't ever just "theoretical".
Do you attach a non-standard and wildly different meaning to the word 'proof' from everybody else and that is such that NOTHING can ever be 'proven'! ? So if we all see a sunrise, that isn't 'proof' of a sunrise!? If you feel agonizing pain, isn't that 'proof' to you that you are in pain?
Without looking it up, how would YOU personally define 'proof'? -that is a genuine question because I honestly don't know. .

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you have never noticed that things fall?
Take your meds. Then move this thread over to the 'totally delusional' forum.

Tell you what, Mr. Density: when you become forum moderator of either this one or that suggested posting place, you can not only set the rules, but you will be able to govern them, as well.

Until then, while you're noticing 'things falling,' it would be advantageous for you to notice 'things not falling,' too.

Originally posted by humy
Now you speak in self-contradictions; wildly by far by any sensible definitions, actual "proof" isn't ever just "theoretical".
Do you attach a non-standard and wildly different meaning to the word 'proof' from everybody else and that is such that NOTHING can ever be 'proven'! ? So if we all see a sunrise, that isn't 'proof' of a sunrise!? If you feel agonizing ...[text shortened]... ould YOU personally define 'proof'? -that is a genuine question because I honestly don't know. .

Then offer your proofs for gravity.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Then offer your proofs for gravity.

hold something denser than air in your hand and then let it go and see if it falls and keep repeating this experiment many times to observe the proof.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't know how profitable a discussion on conspiracy theories would be, actually, since the origin of the phrase only dates back to the 1960's and its originator wasn't a medical group or any other scientific organization whose notes and data could be analyzed independently in order to verify the veracity of the designation... or application.

When the ...[text shortened]... spiracies in light of current and former authorities' insistence nothing untoward was occurring.

"I don't know how profitable a discussion on conspiracy theories would be, actually, since the origin of the phrase only dates back to the 1960's..."

Putting this thread in the science forum is inappropriate since "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world." -- wikipedia