doublegunshop.com - home Forums Global warming

I'm somewhat pleased that you have a low opinion of me, keith. It shows that I do not drag my knuckles behind me on the ground.

I know you're always right and accept your clear superiority. Weren't you a pondering and gonna get back to your version of real science and the apparent creation of matter.

craig, it isn't my version of real science, it's the accepted definition of science and what is meant by science when it's discussed by scientists and historians of science. It isn't my invention. You can certainly have your own views about it but it makes discussion impossible.

I did not get back to you because my answer would have made no sense to anyone who has alternative views of scientific methodology, "proof" and falsification. All this stuff is well-defined and it isn't my definition.

And I was talking about the oft-observed violation of the "law" of conservation of matter that occurs in student labs in organic synthesis and you somehow bring in "philosophy of biochemistry"

There is no such discipline as the "philosophy of biochemistry" and what the hell has biochem got to do with labs in organic synthesis and the conservation of matter?

I honestly don't know g. When organic and synthesis are hooked together, it seems the fall under the biochemistry category. I would be able to understand it, so you rightly took your high road.

I just saw it as a possible concrete point to discuss, rather than feeling, history and general philosophical approach. No big deal, definitely not important.

craig - regarding:

"When organic and synthesis are hooked together, it seems the fall under the biochemistry category." - there is no connection.

"rather than feeling, history and general philosophical approach." Nobody mentioned "feeling" but there is a friggin formal definition of science that is based on certain formalizations and you do not have to accept them but then we will be talking about vastly different things and just making noise at each other.

I have no idea where or why the biochem came into the picture

Got you Gnomon. You see, I feel that what you're trying not to explain is science that you can hang your hat on, just as the examples that I gave earlier. Even though you had issues with technology using science, I'll still contend that the result comes from good science.

I believe you attempt to link the 'climate change' issue with good, reliable, repeatable, proven science. True, measurements can be made, but I question your 'scientific' approach accepting many of the conclusions that are drawn. Can we or should we hang our hat on them, if you sneak in the little disclaimer that 'scientists' can change their minds later.

OK, craig, you "got" me.

You can "feel" whatever you want -

By the way, please stop misquoting me.

And your post just above this one continues to baffle. You still do not hav e the foggiest idea what "science" is and again, you make no sense.

Both you guys are seriously under utilized to keep this kind of nonsense flowing....

LD- that's the story of my life!!

I was destined to great things, but alas...I stumbled into the netherworld of the DGF

ruin and perdition!

Gnomon, just in case that reference was to me: I have three masters degrees and most of a Ph.D (ABD), and I have actually worked in jobs where my official title was "Scientist." You?