jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (4 posts)

Is there such a thing as "settled science?"

  1. profile image60
    retief2000posted 2 years ago

    Is there such a thing as "settled science?"

    A popular phrase, often used by politicians and activists these days, is "settled science." How is this possible if the chief activity of science is to constantly test theories and even laws? If science becomes "settled" what happens to inquiry and freedom? Is there room for dogma in science?

  2. tsadjatko profile image68
    tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago


    Absolutely correct. There is no such thing as settled science, except maybe in the mouths of people like Al Gore and the rest of the manipulative, knave democrat politicians who will say anything to persuade you to believe what they want you to believe either to line their own pockets or usurp power over you, corporations, countries and the world.

    The myth of settled science is a tactic used by the left to shut down debate. When they say that it is time for skepticism.

    "The entire history of the green movement is full of grand hoaxes and even catastrophic advice, dating back to the modern-day birth of this movement with Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring.” This was the green anthem that played a big part in the banning of DDT around the world — a move that contributed to millions of Africans losing their lives from malaria.

    As for the claim that scientists would never “collaborate on a hoax,” what about the Climategate scandal, which the left to this day pretends didn’t happen? Shouldn’t the fact that some of  the leading climate change researchers were caught red-handed manufacturing evidence and suppressing data cause some degree of skepticism by even the media and the scientific community as to the validity of the “science”?

    Nearly every environmental scare of the 1970s backed by hundreds of scientists as well as media, like National Geographic, was proved to be a hoax. We were assured then by the “experts” that the world was overpopulated, running out of energy, food, water, minerals, getting more polluted, and that the end result would be massive poverty famine and global collapse. Every aspect of this collective scientific wisdom was spectacularly wrong."

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … z3WmTUBEED

    The truth is, when known Charlatans like Al Gore, venture to comment on science or any subject on which they have absolutely no credentials to validate an opinion, they are merely looking to cherry pick information they will manipulate to promote their nefarious plans, and they always have willing accomplices whose motivation invariably is either money influence, or power just like their knave perpetrator.

    More than ever this is why people need to be skeptical of everything they hear or read especially when it appears to be couched as the last word. It's called being informed and requires a little intelligence and a lot of work.

  3. JennyRose2 profile image60
    JennyRose2posted 2 years ago

    Science can only narrow topics down for the time being. So I guess some of it could be considered settled, but only for that moment in time. The next moment may present new evidence changing everything. Time as a whole, being regarded as the past, present & future defies "settled science".

  4. someonewhoknows profile image73
    someonewhoknowsposted 2 years ago

    Science is always relative! We have numerous counting systems - decimal 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, etc...hexadecimal - 6,12,18,24,30,36,42,48,54,60 etc......binary computer numerical language 0's and 1's are all that is needed to make up any number. They are all number systems that all relate to science in more or less the same way.Yet they are obviously all different in their own unique way. We also have positive and negative numbers.
    It appears science and religion are similar in that sometimes we see things differently when in, fact there is truth in, everything. Not facts , as some interpret them but,still facts that must be still be dwelt with.