The science of chaos theory... Really
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
According to Science
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
The science of chaos theory... Really
Heyo
Veteran Member
Rarely. Her personal authority is more convincing than her ScD.
It means 'listen to the scientists that agree with our policy'.
Ok, but I think this would mean it's not conclusive yet.
Still open to testing and validation.
I'd prefer it to mean that it's been tested and validated or they'd say according to scientific consensus.
Just saying according to science seems to equivocate the meaning.
Depends,
Being a scientist doesn't stop folks from equivocating the truth when it is politically beneficial.
Cooky
Veteran Member
A theory has been set onto place, and documented.
exchemist
Veteran Member
As with anything in life there are degrees of certainty. When a politician uses it, it could mean anything from something practically beyond question from a science viewpoint, like "you can't go faster than light", or something that is the prevailing consensus today in a fast-changing field in which knowledge is evolving, such as the R(0) number for Covid 19.
But either way, it is an assertion that what is claimed has objective evidence behind it, rather than it being a mere matter of ideology or taste. It seems to me that is why politicians use it.
I actually think it *is* what it should mean. The current best information about some topic in science should be represented by a consensus of the scientists who study that topic.
Things get murkier when you start including scientists who do NOT study that particular topic.
There was a physicist at my university that was also a mayor of a city close by. There is also a senator in a district nearby that was a research scientist at Fermilab.
Scientists are people too....some have political ambitions/goals.
I think that scientists would be less likely to use that phrase. More likely to simply present evidence and tests that validate that evidence when making a claim.
Its a shame to waste a good scientist on politics though.
Unless they can have improve funding
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
A sign that its never good.
Exactly.
What is shameful is a world where a gaggle of sophomoric anti-politician/anti-politics cynics is vying with a basket of deplorables for attention.
Science sucks, I mean it is a lot of work. You gots to document everything, validate everything. Being a politician is like one big party except when you have to cast a vote along party lines.
Ok, maybe not one big party but not as tough as being a scientist.
It would probably mean nothing to me, depending on the context. If they said "According to science, smoking is bad for your health," then I'd believe it, but I wouldn't need a politician to tell me that.
Politicians have earned their reputation