I posted this video in an FB group that debates AGW (Anthropogenic Global
Warming), as a reminder that empirical evidence trumps theory and "models".
Clearly, this made the AGW fanatics very uncomfortable, given that
temperature measurements for the past 18+ years show clearly no warming and
totally don't match their models anymore.
I did expect that they would pointedly ignore the post, which most did, but
I did not expect someone to actually question or even deny the principle.
Yet...
A certain Phillip Shaw attacked the post, claiming that it was an "appeal
to authority", then that it "didn't apply" climate research, citing an
alleged difference between "experimental" and "observational" science.
He asked for "peer reviewed publications", confirming that Feynman's
introduction to scientific thinking was "legitimate" and called his
explanation of the principle on empirical evidence "just Feynman's opinion".
Yes, there is no limit to how stupid people can be...
+Pseudo Lain Because sea level has been rising for over 14 thousands years and is now rising at a lower rate than before for the past 8 thousand years. It's basically flatlined now, but you can scale any graph to look like there is any slope you like. In the short term, sea levels fluctuate. You can go in many places in Europe, especially the UK, and see ancient docks that are way above current sea levels for example.
La flemme! lol En fait j'en avais vu une il y a quelques temps, de la version courte. Dommage, mes contacts ne comprennent pas toujours l'anglais parlé, la faute à l'élevage national formant des moutons et au système d'endoctrinement supérieur formant des idiots instruits, ayant respectivement remplacé l'instruction publique et l'enseignement supérieur français...
+Frédéric Célestin Eh non, désolé. Mais fais une recherche - il y a peut-être bien quelqu'un qui a une version sous-titrée. Ca devrait exister, vu à quel point il est connu ;)
+Pseudo Lain Agreed,...in fact latest development in string theories and M theories leads to the same. According to Leonard Susskind we are just developing random ultimate theories so when have a lead on elementary physics or quantum gravity, we may already have a developed theory to support it.Yes, we accept that we are guessing in science but we do make sure it is best guess ever done. :D
+Neel Doshi Yup, we've gotten really damn good at it.The best part is, as soon as you get even ONE thing right, you get exponential growth around it because you can start to use logic to form hypotheses based on that knowledge.One discovery leads to 5 more, over and over rapidly growing in all directions.It's like childhood, you learn to move a single arm towards something you want which is pretty simple, but not long after that you discover more ridiculously complicated actions, to the point at which you're precisely manipulating your throat, tongue, jaw, lips, breathing, and memory in order to make specific noises string together in a way that not only carries meaning, but also syntax, in something we call spoken language. Later on even this isn't even enough and you throw in complex body movements as well just for the hell of it, which use so much action that I'm not even going to bother going into it, but at that point it's easyThe jump from needing your mothers tit to asking for milk from the fridge is so incredible that many people don't appreciate it.Science is just like that, it can crawl around in the dark for years, but as soon as it spots a sliver of light it will launch to it's feet, sprinting and screaming, "EUREKA!"
+ntr10me Ah, you're Canadian eh? Well I won't argue with what you're saying but I think I'd rather go to Canada than America, if I ever do. Seems like a nicer place. :) Take care too.
+Sci_Ant It's all connected to the pronunciation of the contraction for 'must have'. I train people interested in teaching English as a Second Language, and at least once a year, ONE if not up to FIVE would-be teachers wants to do a lesson teaching 'must of'. I show my own ESL students youtube comment pages and THEIR heads explode at the sight of all the grammar mistakes made by us Average Joe Canuck-mericans. Cheers
+CloseWanSanツ I have a serious question. Why does everyone on the Internet and mostly from the USA use 'must of' instead of 'must have'. You're the first person I've seen openly correct someone for that apparent mistake. When did this madness even begin? XD
+Campbell Haynes must haveSorry. This strengthens my self-esteem. :DEDIT: There's something else that is wrong, but I'll "leave it to your imagination..."
Six Steps to the Scientific Method
Images and music go along with words explaining the scientific method.
Video explaining the scientific method using examples from physics. With this video I try to revert some common misconceptions about science, mainly by ...
Video by potholer54. The 'Made Easy' series explains the evidence of our origins, from the Big Bang to the human migration out of Africa. This video explains ...
Pretty good vid! Similarly, I also wonder why ID's don't also place their
efforts in disproving electromagnetism, quantum physics, plate tectonics,
astrophysics, genetics and the myriad of other sciences that study things
that we can't observe "directly" (because of the long periods of time
involved) if their motivation for falsifying evolution is NOT religious at
its heart (as opposed to having purely intellectual/evidential/scientific
problems with the theory itself, which aren't genuine).