The latter is a theory, not a fact; and the former, as an explanation for the origin of humankind, is an idiot's delight.
OK then you wont except my owed for the fact that I'm mot a left wing progressive (25 years as a Police Detective not withstanding). Where's you evidence that I am - apart form the fact I disagree with you? As for e 'bully pulpit' your the one who immediate raises accusations of ideological bigotry, EVERY SINGLE TIME someone has the temerity to disagree with you. Who then is the bully? Point to one instance where I stated the decision by the Trump Administration to impose a travel ban from China was 'racist' as opposed to a reasonable quarantine measure. Then give me one piece of evidence proving there was widespread (as opposed to minority/crackpot) left wing support for the allegation that Trump was 'racist' for doing so. BTW your evidence for this assertion has been requested previosuly but you still haven't (or can't) produce it.
/facepalm/ You were the one who abandoned civil reason for ad hom and snark. 'Take your meds!!', remember? That is evidence, in my experience, of progressive Indoctrination, not science and reason. Then, you proceeded to dismiss the evidence i presented of the Trump Derangement Syndrome, within progressive institutions, attacking him and ridiculing the science and facts behind the Corona virus decisions. If something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, i can only conclude it is a duck. A better tack, on your part, if you wish to present a 'scientific and rational!', image, is to respond with science and reason, not progressive talking points.
1. 'Science!!' ..is not OWNED by elites, who pretend High Priest status to declare to the unwashed masses the inspirations and revelations they receive. Science is very democratic, and anyone can examine and understand the basic principles, evidence, and methodology. 2. BS filters are essential tools, in any quest for Truth. 3. Ad hom is a departure from science and reason, and denotes religious Indoctrination. 4. Censorship and bullying is part of this 'anti-science world i live in. I have boycotted in the past, for that reason, but see that the Truth is more important than my fragile ego. That is the point of this thread. True science HAS BEEN 'hijacked', by religious ideologues, who pretend it supports their religious beliefs. The following post illustrates that.. ..good example of religious Indoctrination.
Respond with science and reason? You still haven't answered my questions! 1) Point to one instance where I stated (or supported the claim) that the decision by the Trump Administration to impose a travel ban from China was 'racist' as opposed to a reasonable quarantine measure - hence proving my credentials as a 'progressive ideologist' or whatever. 2) Give me one piece of evidence proving there was widespread (as opposed to minority/crackpot) left wing support for the allegation that Trump was 'racist' for doing so. Your the one trumpeting 'reason' and 'science'. For the third time FGS Cough up! Which is also the reason BTW for my 'med's comment. You consistently 'talk the talk' while refusing to to 'walk the walk'. This is a science thread so of you state something as FACT you have to be able to back it up with evidence. Fail to do so (and this applies to you me and everyone else on this forum) then you have to expect your responses to be treated with incredulity.
I have no interest in a lame 'he said, she said!!' flame war. I made my points about the anti-science responses common in Progresso World, illustrated in the medical issues with the virus, and the jeering from progressives toward Trump (which continues unabated). Do with it what you will. But personal attacks and ad hominem replies are only progressive tactics, from irrational, unscientific 'debaters'.
Flame war? I simply asked you to back up your original statements about 'progressive' ideologies, science and allegations about the Trump Administration's 'racist' travel bans. You posted these statements as fact. Not once did I post anything that could be construed as supporting those allegations against Trump or anyone in his administration. The above statement BTW is a FACT, something you obviously can't provide to support your argument. Which makes them false statements. So point to the ad homenin/personal attacks in this post.
Your total lack of knowledge is stunning. As usual, reading a couple of words then literally getting them a$$ backwards is woo woo at work.
and this is why you shouldn't throw out terms you don't know the meaning of. you have been called on this about a dozen times.
Strawman ok? we've been over this already. you have no idea what an ad hom is. You throw it out against every single person who disagrees with you, or who directly refutes your assertions with actual scientific evidence. Nobody is fooled by that. we've been over this as well. nobody has censored you. you have had threads removed from science forums to the religion forum, because your threads are not based on science. you have nobody to blame for that but yourself, as you've been corrected on this a dozen or more times.
Ha ha Hypothesis comes FIRST, then Theory after consensus and validation of trials. Btw, It’s not an insult when I make a factual correction, and you are dead wrong. Those little right wing code words, have no meaning whatsoever in science. It is woo woo when just trying to sound scientific when really, it isn’t even close.
I'm not sure the model is that rigid. It is possible to have both a hypothesis and a theory at the same time. You then have experimentation and/or observations that feed back into both, modifying them as necessary. Consensus comes last after you have refined the theory to the point where you have a high degree of confidence in it, publish your results and have those results independently validated on numerous occasions by other researchers. Or am I missing something?
p This isn’t debatable. It’s science. A hypothesis only becomes a theory after repeated testing and a consensus that anymore under the same conditions will yield like results. Why would anyone in their right mind call anything a theory before hand.
Yup. You’re missing a lot. Just because the theory of evolution was developed long ago after the scientific method was applied to a hypothesis, does not mean it can’t be refined as new evidence is discovered through more testing.by many in field. The words “ hypothetical” and “hypothesis” have the same root. Neither carries the same weight as a theory. Can conjectures be made within a theory and later accepted or not and become corollaries ? Yes. But I don’t confuse the two. .
So you can't have a hypothesis, conduct experiments which produce results proximate to but not exactly in agreement with your hypothesis, change the hypothesis as a result then conduct more experiments which transmutes the hypothesis into a theory?
and this is why you shouldn't throw out terms you don't know the meaning of. you have been called on this about a dozen times.
That’s not what was said before. You’ve completely reworked this statement by you. “not sure the model is that rigid. It is possible to have both a hypothesis and a theory at the same time” I have no idea what your trying to say. Go to a source for science, and look it up. Here is one. https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/writing-a-hypothesis
