"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html

They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that best
fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the
explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this
objective approach to understanding our world?

Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html

They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that best
fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the
explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this
objective approach to understanding our world?

Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe
something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your
"peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic
considerations.

Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you
to sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because
it means that it is not all objective.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html

They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that best
fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the
explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this
objective approach to understanding our world?

Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe
something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your
"peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic
considerations.

Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you to
sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because it
means that it is not all objective.


No. The scientific method involves observation, hypothesis, testing and
measurement. The data is analyzed; a new observation stage. A new
hypothesis based on the previously unknown or incomplete data. More testing
and measurement. And so on.

The consensus you speak of comes from submitting the experiment and the data
to the scientific community via peer reviewed journals. Your peers are then
expected to challenge your data and conclusions through repeating the
experiment to verify the veracity of your data and looking for flaws in the
structure or design of your experiment, data, and conclusions.

It is through the peer review of your work by reputable scientists and
repetition of your experiments that consensus is formed. Concensus is based
on data that is subject to challenge by your peers. Accepted means the data
has been determined to be valid and sound by the reputable scientific
community after withstanding scrutiny by your peers. Peers is the group of
scientists who practice the scientific method as the means to understanding
our physical world. Peers does not refer to some knucklehead who took 10th
grade biology nor to an idividual who has an emotionally driven agenda.

And, again, science uses existing data derived from observation,
experimental design, testing and measurement, subject to peer review, to
explain our world and new data to improve the explanation.

Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that best
fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the
explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this
objective approach to understanding our world?
Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe
something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your
"peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic
considerations.

Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you to
sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because it
means that it is not all objective.


No. The scientific method involves observation, hypothesis, testing and
measurement. The data is analyzed; a new observation stage. A new
hypothesis based on the previously unknown or incomplete data. More testing
and measurement. And so on.

The consensus you speak of comes from submitting the experiment and the data
to the scientific community via peer reviewed journals. Your peers are then
expected to challenge your data and conclusions through repeating the
experiment to verify the veracity of your data and looking for flaws in the
structure or design of your experiment, data, and conclusions.

It is through the peer review of your work by reputable scientists and
repetition of your experiments that consensus is formed. Concensus is based
on data that is subject to challenge by your peers. Accepted means the data
has been determined to be valid and sound by the reputable scientific
community after withstanding scrutiny by your peers. Peers is the group of
scientists who practice the scientific method as the means to understanding
our physical world. Peers does not refer to some knucklehead who took 10th
grade biology nor to an idividual who has an emotionally driven agenda.

And, again, science uses existing data derived from observation,
experimental design, testing and measurement, subject to peer review, to
explain our world and new data to improve the explanation.

What you have described is boils down to observation and consensus.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that
best fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the
explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this
objective approach to understanding our world?
Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe
something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your
"peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic
considerations.

Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you
to sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because
it means that it is not all objective.


No. The scientific method involves observation, hypothesis, testing and
measurement. The data is analyzed; a new observation stage. A new
hypothesis based on the previously unknown or incomplete data. More
testing and measurement. And so on.

The consensus you speak of comes from submitting the experiment and the
data to the scientific community via peer reviewed journals. Your peers
are then expected to challenge your data and conclusions through
repeating the experiment to verify the veracity of your data and looking
for flaws in the structure or design of your experiment, data, and
conclusions.

It is through the peer review of your work by reputable scientists and
repetition of your experiments that consensus is formed. Concensus is
based on data that is subject to challenge by your peers. Accepted means
the data has been determined to be valid and sound by the reputable
scientific community after withstanding scrutiny by your peers. Peers is
the group of scientists who practice the scientific method as the means
to understanding our physical world. Peers does not refer to some
knucklehead who took 10th grade biology nor to an idividual who has an
emotionally driven agenda.

And, again, science uses existing data derived from observation,
experimental design, testing and measurement, subject to peer review, to
explain our world and new data to improve the explanation.

What you have described is boils down to observation and consensus.

Not in the same way that you spin it, Bert.

Bert Robbins wrote:

What you have described is boils down to observation and consensus.

Huh? What to hell are you on? That sentence makes absolutely NO sense!

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html

They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that best
fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the
explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this
objective approach to understanding our world?

Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe
something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your
"peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic
considerations.

Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you to
sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because it
means that it is not all objective.


Newton needed no consensus, nor did Einstein.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that best
fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the
explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this
objective approach to understanding our world?
Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe
something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your
"peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic
considerations.

Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you to
sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because it
means that it is not all objective.


Newton needed no consensus, nor did Einstein.

Newton made an observation and then he had to gain consensus from his
fellow scientists to accept his observation.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that
best fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the
explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this
objective approach to understanding our world?
Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe
something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your
"peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic
considerations.

Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you
to sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because
it means that it is not all objective.


Newton needed no consensus, nor did Einstein.

Newton made an observation and then he had to gain consensus from his
fellow scientists to accept his observation.



And, if one scientist happens to be correct, but nobody else understands,
then he's wrong? Is that what you think?