I know many Dallas Cowboys fans...I have made observation and study of them a science; complete with peer reviews, papers published in major science journals, even lectures to adoring masses.

The correlation took the bare basics of organic chem, cell bio, genetics, etc. lot's of high level classes, including physical chemistry, and biochemistry, fuhgetaboutit.

The result:


Montana to Clark, baaaaby!!!!

Maybe you should have worded your statement:

"Science has the curse of always being in danger of being proved wrong. Scientists make statements based on current evidence and if that evidence later proves to be invalid or superceded by other evidence, the scientists are lambasted as simpletons barely capable of making educated "guesses" at which point in time their new hypothesis begins the cycle of being assailed by every yahoo in the peanut gallery whether they know anything about the subject matter or not." SmileWavy

P: I am thinking of a theory than which there can be no greater.
P: A theory that is always correct is greater than a theory that is not.
P: The theory of which I am thinking.......is correct.
C: Science sucks and the God of Abraham exist!

Damn i'm good! :D

Yeah but um, that never happens!

I have yet to see a scientist lambasted because his theory was shown to be incorrect or incomplete. I've seen them lambasted for falsifying research results, history shows them to be lambasted for original thought that goes against the current dogma (but turns out to be correct) but not for honest research and thought that is simply proven incorrect. That's just my personal observation, YMMV.

Usually it is more like "Wow, look at this great new information, now we have a much better grasp on things."

So, I still stand by my statement. True science fully accepts that a statement made at any given time is by definition based on incomplete evidence. I guess if we ever get to the point of knowing EVERYTHING then that will no longer be the case. Therefore, true science always understands that their theories are almost always incomplete or incorrect. That's what true science says. What people say BASED on science is another thing altogether. People make rash statements based on science all the time, sometimes even the scientists themselves! A real scientist realizes the limits of his knowledge and capability and always leaves himself an out. I think Nostatic does this pretty well. He makes a statement based on current knowledge but always has the caveat of future knowledge making his assertion partially or completely wrong.

Roflmao!

You prefer caning them for being disproven? That will advance the base of human knowledge.

No, I didn't say that. IROC was the one who suggested that scientists currently are lambasted as simpletons when their theories are proven incorrect.

I am simply saying I don't think that is the case.

49er fans, however should all be caned until they come to their senses...

... but this is the year!

Well, you saw the smiling guy at the end of my post, right? I was somewhat serious, though. Scientists take a beating in the conservative press. Heck, Trek does it all the time. I posted something once (some article about some scientific discovery as a rebuttal to something or other) and he simply called the guy a liar. How many times has Trek responded "guesses" to scientific theories?

The general public isn't far removed from Trek, I'm afraid.

I would say the general public is pretty far removed from Trekkor.

And what is this "conservative press" you speak of? Watchtower?

I was caned all through the 60's and 70's...a tad in the 90's, spanked in the 20's.

Levity, my brothers.

You can't measure everything...like the jitterbug, some things in life just plumb evade us...just like Jerry Rice on a slant.:)

Did you miss the entire first several posts in this thread, as well as the title?

This thread itself lambasts scientists, despite the fact that the OP is a raving idiot who did not have a clue what he was talking about. This thread is what IROC was being sarcastic about.

Also, your second explanation of what you meant was about 1000x times better than what you said the first time...in fact, it's damned near the OPPOSITE of what you said the first time. We all obviously misunderstood you, which was why we were calling you out...it appeared that you had said something almost as absurd as the thread subject.

:)

I'm thinking of seafood.

Sadly, the delight that the OP seems to display suggests little or no understanding of science. It makes me wonder from where he might thinks the things that surround him- his widescreen TV, the synth oil in hs car his pre prepared frozen meals, his penecillan and so- actually come from.

Of course, it means more grants.

The theory that only humans and primates are self aware.

The one mentioned in the article.

Never heard of that "theory," sniper. Here's one I was glad to see someone refute...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

That wasn't a theory espoused by science. This is the result of obtaining your understanding of a complex subject from the popular press instead of education in the subject matter. Just like in this case, that seldom works out well.

What rebuttals?

Scientists were proven wrong, they didn't think birds were self aware. They are. What the hell is there for me to rebutt?

My point was that many say "this is fact because scientists say so" ,and that they are only facts in so much as we are still QUITE ignorant about a hell of a lot of stuff.

Birds are self aware, and for all the years scientists told us they weren't, the eggheads were....Wrong.

Understand amigo?

Au contraire captain condescension, scientists have said birds were not self-aware. Hence science espoused that theory.

They were, ahem, wrong.

Now all you have to do is deal with it.