When "all the scientists" were wrong .

Discussion in 'Science' started by Josephwalker, Feb 15, 2020.

  1. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    15,594
    Likes Received:
    7,111
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Geologists of the late nineteenth century assumed the Channeled Scabland formed during the time of great glaciers. Geologists thought that today’s large dry channels in eastern Washington were eroded by streams during the “ice age.” The thinking pattern of these early geologists was distinctly uniformitarian. They imagined very slow processes during immense periods of time causing erosion and sedimentation in the scabland’s channels. The Channeled Scabland was believed to be the product of geological evolution."

    "In 1885 T. C. Chamberlin asserted that an enormous lake had formerly occupied northwestern Montana and that the lake was impounded by glacier ice."

    "In 1923, J. Harlen Bretz, a geologist trained in Washington, suggested an outrageous theory for the origin of the Channeled Scabland. Bretz proposed a catastrophic flood hypothesis for the erosion of channels in the scabland, particularly the most spectacular channel, Grand Coulee"


    "The uniformitarian orthodoxy could not ignore the work of J Harlen Bretz, so a series of rebuttal papers were issued by some of the world’s foremost glacial geologists. A bitter debate among geologists occurred, spanning four decades."

    "The geologic establishment, for forty years, considered the catastrophic flood model for the scablands to be “unthinkable heresy.” By 1960, however, Bretz’s theory was generally acknowledged to be supported by the weight of the evidence."


    https://www.icr.org/article/washington-scablands-lake-missoula-flood/
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
    Moi621, Ddyad and jay runner like this.
  2. jay runner

    jay runner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    13,913
    Likes Received:
    8,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is exceedingly difficult to know a thing to be true -- if it does not fit inside a laboratory.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
    yabberefugee and Josephwalker like this.
  3. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    15,594
    Likes Received:
    7,111
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The scablands had to be formed over thousands of years of erosion. It was patently obvious and there was no other logical explanation and then one day there was as more information came to light.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
    drluggit and jay runner like this.
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    31,675
    Likes Received:
    6,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Science is constructed to be self correcting as fast as possible.

    I don't seen anything wrong with your example of science doing that.

    It took decades for Einstein's theories to be accepted, too. Finally, there was an eclipse that could provide measurable evidence. Einstein's calculations predicted that the light from distant stars would be bent by gravity by a specific amount. Previous physics predicted light would not be bent. Einstein's measrements were right on target.

    Science doesn't just jump to some new idea. And, it is definitely not stuck in some international conspiracy, either.

    AND, scientists LOVE it when they find counter examples. Today, physics faces a problem in that the different ways of measuring the cosmological constant don't agree. If the difference is real (and not just due to measurement errors of some sort) it means our physics probably needs to change!

    Cosmologists REALLY want it to mean we need new physics!!

    The "science just goes along with past ideas" is just plain BULL.

    Science would be BORING if it meant no more than agreeing with predecessors.
     
    XploreR, fmw and Bowerbird like this.
  5. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    19,741
    Likes Received:
    11,637
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You keep turning to turn-of-the-century [1900s] science. Beyond that, it was a hypothesis, not something proven to be a fact.

    How many examples do you think we can cite of crackpot science claimed by people with no formal education in the subject? How many times has Joe Sixpack been wrong? Science evolves based on the evidence. But Joe Sixpack just blabbers about his feelings.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
    Bowerbird likes this.
  6. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    18,501
    Likes Received:
    6,907
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some think the sudden enormous flood was caused by a sudden melting of glacial ice sheets from the impact of a comet or big asteroid hitting the ice age ice .

    Randall Carlson maintains this explanation along with a possible eruption of our star where it rained lightning .
     
  7. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    15,594
    Likes Received:
    7,111
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What you fail to grasp or purposely avoid in the OP is the similarities to the uniformitarian rigid thinking of the scabland scientists to the current crop of AGW scientists and the fact that "all the scientists" can and have been wrong before so using the " all the scientists" say argument is null and void.
     
    Grey Matter likes this.
  8. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    15,594
    Likes Received:
    7,111
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually if you do some research on this fascinating subject as I have, the thinking is Lake Missoula formed and flooded several times as the ice dam formed and was ultimately undermined causing catastrophic failure.
     
  9. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    15,594
    Likes Received:
    7,111
    Trophy Points:
    113
    History is our teacher. Ignore it at your own peril.
     
  10. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    59,131
    Likes Received:
    39,487
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Bravo!
     
    Aleksander Ulyanov likes this.
  11. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    59,131
    Likes Received:
    39,487
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
  12. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    59,131
    Likes Received:
    39,487
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yes it is called palaeontology

    And is based on SCIENCE
     
    Aleksander Ulyanov likes this.
  13. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    59,131
    Likes Received:
    39,487
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    That is YOUR belief

    Unfounded as it is
     
    Aleksander Ulyanov likes this.
  14. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    15,594
    Likes Received:
    7,111
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What's fact and not belief is all the scientists were wrong for many decades and were so due to limited information on which to base their hypothesis just as with AGW scientists today.
     
    Dispondent likes this.
  15. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    20,175
    Likes Received:
    16,154
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So your hypothesis is that because scientists are not always right, then they are never right.

    I have yet to see anybody here say, "ALL the scientists say ...". They say, "the majority of scientists say ...", so your
    counter-argument is null and void.
     
    Aleksander Ulyanov and Bowerbird like this.
  16. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    20,175
    Likes Received:
    16,154
    Trophy Points:
    113
    History has also shown that scientists get things right a fair number of times. You wouldn't even be working on a computer if they didn't.

    But most Trump fans don't seem to understand that science is a PROCESS - not a set of absolutes.
     
  17. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    59,131
    Likes Received:
    39,487
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    And what makes you think that the current reports are operations on “limited data”?

    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

    Citations for just ONE of the ipcc. Reports is more that 1.1 mb
     
    Aleksander Ulyanov likes this.
  18. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    59,131
    Likes Received:
    39,487
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    And what makes you think they are currently operating in “limited information”?
     
    Aleksander Ulyanov likes this.
  19. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    15,594
    Likes Received:
    7,111
    Trophy Points:
    113
  20. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    20,175
    Likes Received:
    16,154
    Trophy Points:
    113
  21. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    15,594
    Likes Received:
    7,111
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are running from the premise of the OP. Just because "all the scientists" agree on something does not make it fact and that is a specious argument.
     
  22. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    15,594
    Likes Received:
    7,111
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've reduced you to word games. LOL
     
  23. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    15,594
    Likes Received:
    7,111
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And what makes you believe climatologist are aware of everything in the cosmos that effects earths climate? We don't know what we don't know.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2020
  24. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    20,175
    Likes Received:
    16,154
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where have I said, "ALL the scientists ..."?
     
    Aleksander Ulyanov and Bowerbird like this.
  25. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    20,175
    Likes Received:
    16,154
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which would put us in a condition of permanent inaction - "We don't know everything, so we can't plan for anything ...". Not buying it.

    It would be like like comforting the woman holding her child at Hiroshima ... "Don't worry, there are 10% of scientists who say
    that humans will never be able to harness the atom ...".
     
    Aleksander Ulyanov and Bowerbird like this.

Share This Page