is it possible for science to prove & disprove the same thing?

Discussion in '9/11' started by groupthink, Aug 15, 2012.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. groupthink

    groupthink New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,703
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    is it possible for one group of scientists use science to prove one thing...and be accurate.. and another group to use the same science..to prove something else...and be accurate....

    is there even a 1% chance of that happening?
     
  2. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Using the exact same science? No.
     
  3. Friendly

    Friendly Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    no. Not much in the world is actually proven though, many more theories then proofs exist.
     
  4. groupthink

    groupthink New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,703
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so the thousands of man made global warming scientist.....and the anti-global warming scientists are using different science? or are they both right? or is one lying?
     
  5. Friendly

    Friendly Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    they are studying theories, not proofs.
     
  6. sparky2

    sparky2 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2012
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Two separate groups of scientists may employ the same scientific methods,
    test and test conditions,
    methodology, and even the same data analysis protocols,
    and yes,
    arrive at different conclusions.

    The differences in outcomes are usually found in the data source, sample size, and the management of the effort.

    As far as both of them being 'right', or both of them having 'proven' totally opposite things, that is a matter for the public reading the reports to decide.

    Scientists rarely operate in terms of 'we proved this or that'.

    True scientists offer a hypothesis, collect data in an objective and scientific fashion, analyze the data, and then render a report that concludes whether the hypothesis was supported by the data.
    And if so, whether that support was of a statistically-significant nature.
     
  7. Friendly

    Friendly Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Yes, they can do as you say. But for something to become a scientific fact or even a theory, it must be able to be recreated every time with the same procedures and measurements. Must be able to be replicated.
     
  8. sparky2

    sparky2 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2012
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I guess what I am saying is,
    try to think in terms of good science, not in terms of web-forum bickering.

    A pedestrian knucklehead would cry, 'they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that X exists', while a proper scientist who actually worked on the study would say, 'we found that the data and evidence offered statistically-significant support to the hypothesis that X is real'.

    This is a fact; Totally separate groups of differing political persuasions will read the same report, and come to different conclusions, depending upon the cherry-picking of certain portions of the report that support their particular view.

    And BOTH will claim that the study supported their position.
     
  9. sparky2

    sparky2 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2012
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree 100%.
    But the OP wasn't positing on scientific fact or established theory, not in my observation.
    He was hanging an un-anchored thought out there, and then dropping the other political shoe a few posts later; the tired old 'global warming' chestnut.
     
  10. sparky2

    sparky2 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2012
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And if 'global warming' is the topic, then the field (and popular, non-scientific literature) is rich with examples of junk science, bad science, and politically-motivated pseudo-science.

    In my observation anyway.
     
  11. Friendly

    Friendly Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    But the pedestrian knucklehead in this case probably would not be applying the scientific method....... where as the "scientist" will if he wants to be published. Not saying yes or no on global warming, just saying in a general sense a pedestrian knucklehead is often unaware about how to apply the scientific method.
     
  12. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,644
    Likes Received:
    3,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The purpose of the scientific method is to create conditions that allow for the continual test of conclusions. Thus, it's not a matter of the public reading the reports to decide. It's a matter of the public testing the conclusions to decide.

    As a side note:

    I find that the OP barely legible. It's filled with ambiguous pronouns, improper terminology, and terrible punctuation. I don't see how you could expect a clear answer to a question, when the question itself is not clear.
     
  13. groupthink

    groupthink New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,703
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    im multi tasking as usual.. thats why i make quick posts..2 kids preg wife... trying to clean up backyard.. i post real quick when i get 5 seconds to spare... im not sitting cozy at a desk with no distractions...

    anyway... example....

    one scientist can use science to "prove" why its so hot today....cause being global warming......another scientist....can use science....and explain how man was not to blame.... both having outstanding credentials.... are they both right?
     
  14. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You have scientists using assumptions. We know very little about climate overall. That is why nobody can build an accurate model. When scientists are using pure science i.e. the laws of physics, two scientists should not be able to come up with conflicting observations. One of them has to be wrong and one of them has to be right OR the law is wrong and needs to be modified.

    So how about cutting to the chase and making an actual point that deals with the OP and 9/11?
     
  15. groupthink

    groupthink New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,703
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    no what if theres money involved.... does money corrupt science?
     
  16. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Way to get to the point. Or not.

    If the science goes off of assumptions, money can corrupt science because one can base their assumptions on the bias they are being paid for. A prime example is your global warming. There is evidence that scientists are biasing their work towards the outcome they want. It is hard to say if the bias is based on monetary, political or personal beliefs. If the science is based in established laws of engineering, physics and the like, anyone who tries to corrupt the science would be found out in peer review of the work which makes it much harder for money or any other reason to corrupt the science.

    That is why truthers don't publish their work unless they can control who is reviewing the work. Harrit and Jones got their asses handed to them when people tried to reproduce their work and validate their claims of "thermitic material" embedded in the paint chips. Turns out they were just paint chips.

    So what is your point? All this dancing around the point is getting silly.
     
  17. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    What's sad about reading that saga is it was never made clear why thermite/thermate/termites were in the running as "proof" if their goal was to "prove" a controlled demolition. If that's what they really thought they would have been looking for RDX, known to be used in demolitions:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDX

    Semtex: (Trade name): Plastic demolition explosives containing RDX and PETN as major energetic components.


    The fact "truther" leaders dragged followers on a wild goose chase for almost a decade should be a wake up call to the most die hard fans. The truth cult leaders aren't interested in the "truth", they're interested in your money. Snap out of it.
     
  18. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here was the problem Harrit and Jones were facing; they knew they couldn't find RDX traces in the dust because others had already tried. There was no evidence of RDX or any other known high explosive, nor were there any signs of steel cut by high explosives, seismic records of high explosives going off, and no signs of the equipment used to set off RDX.

    They tried to find proof of thermate/thermite/termites, but they didn't find evidence of that either. What they did find was an "active thermitic material" which means something that gives off more heat than the heat put into it. A match head qualified as an "active thermitic material." Unfortunately for them, they could not identify the reaction and they could only get the reaction to work after they had refined the dust several times including via solvents. Also unfortunately for them is the fact a thermitic reaction can't happen in paint because the thermitic reaction relies on the propagation of the reaction through close contact of unreacted material with the reacting material. That is what makes nano-thermite more reactive. Finer particles can be closer together which causes a faster and more energetic reaction. But. (Oh come on, you KNEW a but was coming!) Mix nano thermite with ANYTHING else and you've just rendered it all but useless. The particles you worked so hard to make smaller now have all kinds of (*)(*)(*)(*) between the particles. Oh, and don't forget the fact thermite paint would do nothing but mildly heat up the steel IF you could get the reaction going and sustained. A thin layer of paint or even a REALLY THICK layer of paint isn't enough to generate enough heat to do more than warm up the steel since the reaction doesn't last long especially when it is as thin as a layer of paint.
     
  19. groupthink

    groupthink New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,703
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so.. science can be manipulated when there are billions of dollars involved?
     
  20. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I decided to take a closer look at OP to see where this is going...

    And yes, it is possible "for one group of scientists use science to prove one thing...and be accurate", say the Theory of Gravity...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

    and "another group to use the same science..to prove something else...and be accurate....", for instance confirmation of Trojan Points:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point

    This is another case where OP has failed .

    I think I know what you're trying to say, but failed to delineate it. Most people assumed what you might mean based on your posting history, but, as one of our past "friends" liked to remind us, assuming....well, he like to spell it ass-uming, so you get the idea. :)
     
  21. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You know you're going to go completely over their head with this, right?
     
  22. groupthink

    groupthink New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,703
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so when science says smoking cigarettes where good for you..and fluoride is good for you.. when those scientists are getting paid from those companies who sell that product...

    any other scientists say those items are dangerous.....they are not being paid and subsequently black balled from the scientific community.
    ..are both sets of scientists correct? or are the scientists benefiting from the scientific findings correct?
     
  23. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's considered possible in science to prove anything, so the answer is no.
     
  24. groupthink

    groupthink New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,703
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so when science proves 9/11 was carried out by 19 islamo fascists... the same scientist that collect government paychecks...is that 100% correct science?
     
  25. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I meant to say impossible. It's considered impossible to prove anything in science.
     

Share This Page