The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words

From "significant" to "natural," here are seven scientific terms that can prove troublesome for the public and across research disciplines

By Tia Ghose and LiveScience

TechMediaNetwork

Hypothesis. Theory. Law. These scientific words get bandied about regularly, yet the general public usually gets their meaning wrong.

Now, one scientist is arguing that people should do away with these misunderstood words altogether and replace them with the word "model." But those aren't the only science words that cause trouble, and simply replacing the words with others will just lead to new, widely misunderstood terms, several other scientists said.

"A word like 'theory' is a technical scientific term," said Michael Fayer, a chemist at Stanford University. "The fact that many people understand its scientific meaning incorrectly does not mean we should stop using it. It means we need better scientific education."

From "theory" to "significant," here are seven scientific words that are often misused.


MORE:



http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... P_20130408

Hypothesis. Theory. Law. These scientific words get bandied about regularly

Kind of like man made global warming bots trying to add the word "Consensus" to the band. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yup...global warming, evolution, it's all made up...

:lol:

elklindo69 wrote:Yup...global warming, evolution, it's all made up...

:lol:

Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first, general agreement, and second, group solidarity of belief or sentiment

Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Notice how neither of these words requires FACT to be part of the equation - only general agreement.

Man Caused Global Warming is still opinion and not based in ANY SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Man Caused Global Warming is still opinion and not based in ANY SCIENTIFIC FACT.

I don't even think it's their real opinion, I believe it's a consensus among groups of people that in order to bring about environmental changes they want and as a means to receive unlimited funding, to agree upon a script to achieve that means. It's a consensus based upon wants, not upon science.

It's the same thing when teacher unions says it's their consensus increasing pay for teachers and giving them more benefits will result in better educated students; it's not about the students, it's about the personal wants of those who have reached that consensus. Many scientists have stooped to the level of teacher's unions to get what they want.

As the article states, people like liar leroy and justupid, just use false semantics to create their lies and distort the reality of science so they can support their total fantasies and avoid all responsibilities and all rationality. liar leroy and justupid, the public delusions of the totally dishonest and corrupt trying to mislead the gullible. (or are they simply the stupid gullible,, It's hard to tell, but they speak with the conviction of the dishonest.)

BilboBagend wrote:As the article states, people like liar leroy and justupid, just use false semantics to create their lies and distort the reality of science so they can support their total fantasies and avoid all responsibilities and all rationality. liar leroy and justupid, the public delusions of the totally dishonest and corrupt trying to mislead the gullible. (or are they simply the stupid gullible,, It's hard to tell, but they speak with the conviction of the dishonest.)

As we've seen, Dildo is only able to make personal attacks because he has no facts that can be used to disprove my statements, he even lies about accepted definitions of words.

Where is the false statement in these dildo?

"
Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first, general agreement, and second, group solidarity of belief or sentiment

Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Notice how neither of these words requires FACT to be part of the equation - only general agreement.

Man Caused Global Warming is still opinion and not based in ANY SCIENTIFIC FACT.
"

Still only bullshit from liar leroy.

Every domian on language has it's own variation of the meaning of works. Technical meanings are not exactlt the same as the meanings in a layman's dictionary.

AS THE article clearly stated. It's an intentionally dishonest game by the corrupt to pretend as liar leroy intentionally does.

Leroy wrote:

elklindo69 wrote:Yup...global warming, evolution, it's all made up...

:lol:

Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first, general agreement, and second, group solidarity of belief or sentiment

Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Notice how neither of these words requires FACT to be part of the equation - only general agreement.

Man Caused Global Warming is still opinion and not based in ANY SCIENTIFIC FACT.

I find this ignorance in the modern age astonishing and shocking.

The theory of relativity has very very very little empirical evidence to support it. So the astronomers can see the light bend around the moon and satellites internal clocks are off by a number of seconds? But you don't see Rush Limbaugh belly aching about it.

Now you have global warming. There's fifty zillion, thermometers, space satellites, doppler radars, and every other swinging dick from here to timbuktu is making some type of meteorological measurement. There is more evidence to prove that global warming is in some part attributed to man than there is to support the theory of relativity.

elklindo69 wrote:I find this ignorance in the modern age astonishing and shocking.

The theory of relativity has very very very little empirical evidence to support it. So the astronomers can see the light bend around the moon and satellites internal clocks are off by a number of seconds? But you don't see Rush Limbaugh belly aching about it.

Now you have global warming. There's fifty zillion, thermometers, space satellites, doppler radars, and every other swinging dick from here to timbuktu is making some type of meteorological measurement. There is more evidence to prove that global warming is in some part attributed to man than there is to support the theory of relativity.

I find your dishonesty, in the wake of all the data that has to be ignored, in claiming something that can't be proven by anyone, to me most astonishing and shocking.

We have reports claiming that the world is cooling, we've had reports that it's cooling, we've had reports that it's warming (if you ignore some of the data or lie), and yet we've not had a single thing proposed that will change the Man Caused side without making someone rich or doing more harm than it does good.

There is no evidence to prove Global Warming, only speculation.

To be honest, I'm amazed that people that are smart enough to find a website without help from a parent are stupid enough to claim that speculation, lies, deceptions, and "consensus" are somehow fact.

liar leroy, the speech of the malevolent, self imposed ignorant, dishonest, and dishonorable. What more can one say? Really, nothing. For some like liar leroy fantasy trumps science.

HOCKEY STICK!