What percentage of science is settled and what percentage is not?

[TexMichFan]

Anyone have a number of the percentage of science that is settled and no longer in dispute?

I know climate change is settled no further study is needed but where else have we settled science?

 

[BelemNole]

What does that question even mean? All science is open to further study. If you can find enough evidence to overcome the existing paradigm you win.
Whether or not you want to waste your career on a long shot like trying to prove the earth is really only 6000 years old is your choice, but no one will stop you. And if you somehow discover some revolutionary new field that explains away everything from a dozen other fields your model will become the new paradigm. That's how it works.
Right now climate change has overwhelming evidence supporting it. So does evolution and the moon landing.

 

[aflachawk]

What does that question even mean? All science is open to further study. If you can find enough evidence to overcome the existing paradigm you win.
Whether or not you want to waste your career on a long shot like trying to prove the earth is really only 6000 years old is your choice, but no one will stop you. And if you somehow discover some revolutionary new field that explains away everything from a dozen other fields your model will become the new paradigm. That's how it works.
Right now climate change has overwhelming evidence supporting it. So does evolution and the moon landing.

That's not true. GW alarmists have told us for years it was settled. Not its not????

 

[TexMichFan]

What does that question even mean? All science is open to further study. If you can find enough evidence to overcome the existing paradigm you win.
Whether or not you want to waste your career on a long shot like trying to prove the earth is really only 6000 years old is your choice, but no one will stop you. And if you somehow discover some revolutionary new field that explains away everything from a dozen other fields your model will become the new paradigm. That's how it works.
Right now climate change has overwhelming evidence supporting it. So does evolution and the moon landing.

Question mean what it says.

I would challenge that your statement that all science is open to further study since as it applies to climate change if you don't go along with the science is settled group you should be shunned.

I say not much in science is settled and that we should be as willing to listen to studies that don't agree with are stance as we are to the ones that are.

 

[BelemNole]

I say not much in science is settled and that we should be as willing to listen to studies that don't agree with are stance as we are to the ones that are.

That's nonsense. As humans we have a very limited amount of time on the earth and there is a tremendous amount of work being produced every day. One can not read everything. Reading every crack-pot idea and treating it equally valid is just stupid. Just because some nut thinks people rode dinosaurs and wrote a paper about it doesn't mean I need to spend any time reading it.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Question mean what it says.

I would challenge that your statement that all science is open to further study since as it applies to climate change if you don't go along with the science is settled group you should be shunned.

I say not much in science is settled and that we should be as willing to listen to studies that don't agree with are stance as we are to the ones that are.

Is gravity settled? Feel free to investigate by leaping off a tall building to test it. Interestingly, though the basis for gravity...or evolution...or global warming is accepted as settled...there's still a lot of investigation that needs to be done.

 

[mstp1992]

That's not true. GW alarmists have told us for years it was settled. Not its not????

You answered your own question by saying "alarmists." Most certainly the preponderance of evidence points to a change in our climate, and there is also evidence indicating a human contribution. However, the scientists who say it's 100% man-made are few and far between.

 

[jscott78]

Honestly, aren't these types of questions best settled by right wing politicians and right wing talk radio? They know their science, right, and have no political motivations, correct?

QUOTE="TexMichFan, post: 1255013, member: 18087"]Anyone have a number of the percentage of science that is settled and no longer in dispute?

I know climate change is settled no further study is needed but where else have we settled science?[/QUOTE]

 

[The Tradition]

Is gravity settled? Feel free to investigate by leaping off a tall building to test it. Interestingly, though the basis for gravity...or evolution...or global warming is accepted as settled...there's still a lot of investigation that needs to be done.

NASA funds Penn research testing rules of gravity in space

One of the biggest mysteries in modern science is the speed at which the universe is expanding. Galaxies that have been moving apart since the Big Bang billions of years ago should be slowing down due to gravity, but instead, they are accelerating. The search for so-called “dark energy” is one part of the potential explanation for this phenomenon, but while hidden forces may be at play, human understanding of gravity itself may be incomplete at these cosmological scales.

To explore this possibility, a team of Penn cosmologists and their colleagues at Cornell are partnering with NASA in search of new wrinkles in the theory of gravity.

The U.S. space agency is providing a three-year, almost $1 million grant to the two institutions to develop models and test theories of how the rules of gravity, as described by Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, might break down in extreme cases.

http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/curre...nds-penn-research-testing-rules-gravity-space

 

[TexMichFan]

Is gravity settled? Feel free to investigate by leaping off a tall building to test it. Interestingly, though the basis for gravity...or evolution...or global warming is accepted as settled...there's still a lot of investigation that needs to be done.

Bully

 

[naturalmwa]

Bully

Is this a Teddy Roosevelt type bully?

 

[86Hawkeye]

Anyone have a number of the percentage of science that is settled and no longer in dispute?

I know climate change is settled no further study is needed but where else have we settled science?

In order to know the percentage of science that is settled, one must know how much science there is.

How much science is there?

 

[TexMichFan]

In order to know the percentage of science that is settled, one must know how much science there is.

How much science is there?

100%

 

[Joes Place]

NASA funds Penn research testing rules of gravity in space

And yet, 'gravity', as it applies to 100% of the mechanical, civil and structural engineering performed around the world, is 100% "settled". No one is waiting for the Penn study to be complete before they design and build a bridge....

Seems like you don't understand the points here at all.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

And yet, 'gravity', as it applies to 100% of the mechanical, civil and structural engineering performed around the world, is 100% "settled". No one is waiting for the Penn study to be complete before they design and build a bridge....

Seems like you don't understand the points here at all.

That Trad doesn't understand IS "settled science".

 

[naturalmwa]

That Trad doesn't understand IS "settled science".

This reminds me of when they toss out the "It's just a theory" meme. They think they're so clever and get so proud. I imagine this must be what its like to have children.

 

[Eternal Return]

Question mean what it says.

I would challenge that your statement that all science is open to further study since as it applies to climate change if you don't go along with the science is settled group you should be shunned.

I say not much in science is settled and that we should be as willing to listen to studies that don't agree with are stance as we are to the ones that are.

Science is never settled and there are always disputes between scientists. However, that's why peer review exists. You accept the studies that have been peer reviewed even though you continue studying. For example, there is growing evidence ("growing"--meaning, ongoing) from ice cores taken in Antarctica that provide scientific facts such as "the earth's temperature has changed x amount in the past 100 years." Combine tons of facts that are related and they begin to tell a "narrative" about how the climate has changed, is changing, and is projected to change in the future. New evidence will always be added to such equations giving more and more refined knowledge and greater predictability. In some cases, contrasting evidence may arise which would require re-evaluation and further analysis.

In the case of climate change, however, there is overwhelming scientific data (facts) that demonstrate that there are numerous contributing factors to global climate change, including the ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions that have been occurring over the past hundred years and spiking upward at more accelerated paces over the previous few decades. This isn't a matter of winning or losing in any political sense; it's a matter of the long-term well-being and sustainability of civilization.

The "good" news for those who, for whatever reasons, believe that there is no climate changing threats to humanity is that none of the "power nations" allow scientific data on climate change to impact economic or any other significant policies. In other words, those who disbelieve the science that indicates that the ecosystems humanity depends upon for resources and, ultimately, life are "winning" in that nothing significant or meaningful or helpful in relation to the global environment is happening. Hooray! But, more importantly, who the hell are you arguing against since nothing that science has discovered has made an impact in terms of government policies?