cladking

I can provide not only extensive evidence but proof that the existing paradigm is incorrect. But this all exists, except for the implications, within a very soft science where it simply isn't accepted. It isn't accepted because there is little physical evidence and it along with all the other evidence already has an interpretation so they don't need any stinkin' new interpretation. Never mind that the new interpretation much better explains the evidence and is able to make accurate predictions because it will upset almost all basic paradigms. There are a few tenets of the theory that I've never actually sat down and listed the evidence but only because it's difficult and would be very unconvinciung to people. Such as the contention that "intelligence" as it is percieved does not exist. I suppose someday I'll have to write this post as well but it is very far afield from my primary interest and discovery. All I have is evidence. All human history and all human knowledge is evidence but the shift in perspective required to see it is even greater than the collapse of the paradigms that must occur. We are not what we think we are and this has reverberations throughout all human endeavor. Perspective is everything and always has been. Modern language ignores perspective and always assumes a shared perspective. This is why science has it's own language and why ideas are very hard to judge on their merits.

That scientists are better at seeing anomalous results doesn't change the fact that they still will usually see what they expect. At any given moment the brain is bombarded with all sorts of sensory input and there aren't enough hours in the day to sit down and analyze even one second of all this input. Seeing anomalies is often like finding a needle in a haystack. Scientists find more needles but they still see what they expect in between finding needles (or getting poked in my case).

I've been around message boards a long time and have won some arguments. Very few people can say they've won some arguments. This is not the way it usually goes. I'd agree I've seen this pattern here a little bit but it doesn't exist elsewhere. What happens is people make statements that refute a paradigm and may have good or very poor logic and evidence. People respond often with irrelevancies that seem to work against belief in the original assertion. The "crackpot" comes back and addresses these concerns sometimes and often gets off onto long discussions about the irrelevancies. Rancor tends to increase the more the original idea is supported OR the more the "crackpot" fails to address direct questions and direct counterargument. Eventually it breaks down into name calling usually. Obviously with hard science the truth is more determinable so this pattern is less pronounced here but it still exists to some extent. It's the nature of the beast. It is determined by human nature, the nature of human knowledge and the venue or the nature of message boards. I like message boards because patience and persistence can win (and, of course, I can dress up my posts a little so I don't come off an idiot). People simply don't understand that everything is perspective. Even things we often don't think of as having more than one vantage from which to see them change with perspective. Much of reality is not what we believe it to be but simply construct. I believe that some of the "crackpot" theories on the net have a significant possibility of being correct but it is invisible to people because of their perspectives and language; because the theories are outside of their experience and knowledge. There are a lot of very interesting ideas now days coming from many sources.

Not quite. The only paradigms that need to change are those which are incorrect. To some extent it can be argued that paradigms are constructs and shouldn't exist at all but the fact is humans need a model for complicated phenomena to think about it at all. I believe a lot of the problem with the inability to see what isn't expected can be mitigated by better recognizing it exists. Further there are common sense steps that can help. Of course scientists are already better at this than most people but one needn't look very hard to see that there is more room for improvement. A lot can be changed by changing perspectives. Even scientists can be very poor at seeing reality from more than a single perspective. We see what we know so a scientist will see what he learned in school and in the lab but will tend to overlook the myriad and extensive phenomena of which he is ignorant. Even scientists tend to believe in human omniscience. I disagree. Humans are trying to determine reality even though we've lost sight of this due to the nature of modern science and modern language. Reality isn't determined by a panel of experts, peers, or rave reviews in scientific journals. Reality isn't even determined by an individual or the language in which he produces the idea that leads to seeing it. Reality exists outside of humanity or a dead cats. Of course human progress is about sharing information about reality so if one person "knows" something and can't communicate it or lacks the proof to be convincing then that reality can't help progress except to the degree it can be utilized by the individual. Almost all new information (about reality) that fits with current beliefs will tend to be readily accepted. It will usually arise from those who are trained and funded in traditional ways. This makes it easier to accept and the logic required to understand it is an outgrowth of what's already known. Other ideas are difficult to grasp and some (like mine) require an entirely new perspective.

This "rigor" is learned in language and it takes place in language. It was invented by someone who was employing language in his mind. It seen from the perspectives of language. Yes. Science is a "way of thinking" and has its own language to some extent. It is ONLY these reasons that it works at all. Modern language is incapable of the kind of communication that would allow scientists to build on the work of others. This is mitigated by scientific language, scientific logic (math), and strict definitions of terms employed in a highly limited scope. I believe scientific communication can be further improved and this will be important going forward. . I made several points in what you quoted and am not sure which you are addressing. It would be easy to just think of all science as the exception to the rule that humans are merely hairless apes. The first time a human thought of something to improve his life and tell others about it we undertook a path of progress and exceptions simply accumulate as human progress. The FACT that people don't see what they don't expect is not disproven by the exceptions. I came from a very highly indirect route to this point. It is probably the most highly circuitous possible route to this point. One of the things I tripped over on this protracted and continuing stumble you'll find fascinating; http://www.aldokkan.com/art/proverbs.htm

I'm sure we're using a different definition of science but we're apparently using a different definition of scient as well. To me a scientist is anybody who engages in science especially for the purpose of understanding or furthering it. Apparently you are drawing a distinction between professionals and amateurs and excluding those not working on the cutting edge as well. Einstein was a clerk in the patent office. But this is a digression. I was merely trying to answer your points regarding human behavior and who is a scientist and who is not is irrelevant to that point. Truth and discovery of natural law and reality is independent of the idea or individual which (who) led to it. Human beings and most animals engage in repetitious behavior that is habit. We mistake the habits of thought as intelligence and this is disproven by the ability of some individuals to engage in conversation even after brain injury or degradation from other causes. Of course anything that applies to humans applies to modern scientists. Anything that applies to all animals applies to modern scientists. People are on auto-pilot. These aren't my words but they are accurate in my estimation. I'm not sure "habit" is entirely relevant to my points but it is the kind of thing we mistake for intelligence. It does affect scientists on and off the job because it affects "all" animals. It is relevant to why new ideas tend to be rejected out of hand.

I had said; "Scientists are people. People can't see what they don't expect. Scientists don't see what they don't expect." This is a virtual tautology and supported by a lot of research in the soft sciences. It is factual. I did not say scientists are less creative or inquisitive than other people. They are obviously not less creative or inquisitive than most people no matter how these terms are defined. The fact you could make a good case that artiusts turn out more painting on average than scientists do notwithstanding. Of course they are trained to look for anomalous results. It's pretty much what scientists do. Of course scientists are better at seeing such things than most other people. But scientists are still people and all people have a hard time seeing what they don't expect even when they are trained in proper scientific observation. If you stick to the point and what I actually say then I will respond further.

We're talking about two distinct subjects. You're talking about scientists and I'm talking about human beings. Humans are infinitely flexible and all modern (human) scientists speak modern language. Despite this I'm trying to make a distinction between scientists who speak modern language and those who don't largely because humans are infinitely flexible and I don't know all modern scientists. Even though people are infinitely flexible and can operate in more than a single mode there are some characteristics that apply to all humans and these include characteristics that can apply to all animals. Humans by definition have a characteristic that makes them distinct from other animals and this is complex language. It makes them distinct not because it allowed them to think themselves into existence as the modern convoluted thinking says but rather it makes us distinct because it allows human progress through IDEAS and the ability TO PASS KNOWLEDGE ACROSS GENERATIONS. It does not provide intelligence as we mistakingly believe. Scientists are not more intelligent than other people. There is no such thing as intelligence at all. There are only IDEAS which are a manifestation of clecerness but bot cleverness and ideas are both events rather than states. This is all proved in myriad ways but people can't see it because of modern language which we use to think. How can you possibly see thatit's language that created humanity when your definition of humanity is lacking and you've already thought yourself into existence with no help from others or your parents? "I think therefore I am" virtually excludes all other precepts and connotes great intelligence especially among those of us who have great ideas like "I think therefore I am". One of the characteristics of almost all animals is that a lot of behavior is habit. Animals will define a territory and exclude others. A man will likely keep his wallet in the same pocket day in and day out. Choosing words for a post to counter or respond to another will result from well worn paths in the brain. There's no intelligence in this post and no real cleverness but rather it is the result of two languages and years of habit. I've simply set by thinking to words directed at your statement. I can defend these words in more detail without breaking a sweat or having to come up with a new IDEA because this is all ground I've gone over endlessly. It's been necessary to go over it again and again because it isn't believed and it's not believed because language gives people a perspective that says it isn't true. Perspective is all important to communication and to understanding but it is irrelevant to reality. I believe what I'm saying is the reality and people don't see it because of perspective. Absolutely not. Scientists are people. People can't see what they don't expect. Scientists don't see what they don't expect. Scientists are trained to see what's there and sometimes we do. This doesn't mean that anyone can see the phenomena that would lead to the unified field theory. If anyone could see it then we'd know. Apparently there has to be more progress and new ideas before someone can see it serendipitously or correctly hypothesize where to look. You along with a large percentage of the population and many many scientists have an incorrect view of how science and scientists work. This confusion is caused by language and can't be seen because it is the same language in which "all" scientists and "all" people think. It's not necessarily thought that is ever confused because we all know what we're thinking; it's perspective that is forced on us by language and existing paradigm.

This isn't what I said. I said that most research and experimentation is (quite naturally) going for to those building on existing theory. Those trying to work on projects and experiments that would overturn the existing paradigm find it (unnaturally) difficult to get funding. Who in the world said science doesn't work! I'm talking about the fundamental reasons it does work and how to make it work even better but this is paradigm changing so it's difficult for you to even see this.

People are on auto-pilot. I've seen brilliant people degraded by alzheimers disease and they can still carry on a perfectly reasonable conversation even after they've lost most of their cognitive reasoning and most of their memory. Speech and most thought is merely habit. By what mechanism does this expulsion occur? Language isn't merely a tool for communication and the mechanism which drives human progress. It is the means we use to think. As such the tool defines the job that can be done. Modern science derives from modern metaphysics and lack of substantive progress in philosophy is the result of the weaknesses of language as a means of communication. Aren't animals resisting to change too, and in some way, more drastically than humans? What about plants, what about rocks? I rarely see any evidence that anyone is willing to change their beliefs. It's easy (and accurate) to say scientists are willing to adopt new ideas with evidence but this does not apply so much to paradigm changing ideas. Perhaps your experience is different? Who was the last priest you convinced that no Gods existed or scientist who came to accept religion? What paradigm upsetting science has even arisen in the recent past? Getting funding for "crazy" new ideas is not so easy. Even if there are military implications it can be difficult to get funding for anything that lies outside common beliefs. Grants are awarded by panels and ideas that are outside the experience of these people have almost no chance. One thing about ideas; the right ones always win in the long run. It may require persistance and patience but if it's right it will prevail. Of course this will no longer be true when we dip back into another dark ages. Ideas can die if they get more than a generation in age. I'm sure I don't understand much of the post but I don't know much of anything. While it might have been better to start another thread I'll give it a hearing. How do you know it's BS other than that it doesn't fit many current hypotheses? If it contradicts facts or logic why not mention it ands give the aurthor a chance to defend his definitions? I don't necessarily support the idea but I doubt if God posted the unified field theory here it would be accepted by anyone unless, of course, it was accompanied by math that was understandable by some. Very few ideas that involved a lot of change have ever been embraced from the beginning.

Exactly! We mistake habit for genius and what we see as proof of what we know. It's not as much a law of nature as it is a perspective thrust on us by modern language. Belief lies at the heart of action and vision/ observing/ observation are in very real ways an action just as ancient people believed. Language leads us to believe we know just about everything because of the perspective it provides. This all applies to scientists and everyone else. A good scientist certainly can usually separate scientific knowledge from speculation in his mind but it's much more difficult to do this in real life which includes his own laboratory. It certainly includes an interview for an article or the way he interprets experiment. It is, no doubt, possible to think in primarily scientific terms. This is human nature. No matter what language people use they resist change but modern language simply makes change less visible. People are not prone to changing their beliefs but new ideas keep coming anyway and so long as these ideas can be incorporated to make money or progress a few will adopt them. Mosty people are either dragged along kicking and screaming or they refuse to change and their children adopt the new "belief". Time and tide wait for no man but by the same token the tide can't be hurried either. It can never be dawn until the earth has turned another ~360 degrees from the previous dawn.

It's not my contention that scientific knowledge isn't real knowledge. It is my contention that the interpretation of data and experiment that defines the paradigm. Theory, data, and experiment define knowledge and anyone might have visceral knowledge of any of this because it is established fact. At the risk of opening up a discussion in epistomology which might not even be relevant to this thread the fact is that visceral knowledge is the only kind of knowledge which is repeatable. One can know in "theory" how to hammer in a nail but if you've never done it you might find you can't do it. One can know in "theory" that 2 + 2 = 4 but if your experience says this isn't always true then you know that all things aren't applicable all the time. Two bananas purchased a month ago plus two bananas purchased today do nort make four bananas. The fact that something is true and scientifically correct does not mean that it is the kind of knowledge that one can use to live his life or to manipulate his enviroment. The fact that you can do the math doesn't mean your equation applies to anything in the real world and if does apply it only becomes repeatable after it becomes visceral. Without scientific knowledge most of our visceral knowledge would be involved with how to dig grubs or make caves more comfortable. And this is the part that's invisible to all people using modern language and modern science but this another subject. Most of what we call "knowledge" isn't so much knowledge as it is interpretation of evidence. This interpretation can become "visceral" with enough supporting evidence from enough perspectives. Until accurate and repeatable predictions can be made by an individual it is not visceral knowledge. It can still be true and a lot of what people believe is true and this especially applies to scientists. A lot of what they believe is truly "knowledge" but it is not necessarily of real value to the individiual. This might be too fine a distinction for some things but the point is this non-visceral knowledge still affects our perspective and how we see reality. We still see this reality wherever we look. We still have confirmation for this knowledge even though some of it is unusable, can't make predictions, or is unrepeatable. It depends on what we have learned from others rather than what we ourselves have learned. It may have great value in many ways but it is often dependent on premises, axioms, and definitions that we don't understand. Visceral knowledge is real and there is reason to trust most of its components and premises. We could misunderstand how to drive a nail but odds are if you can do it then you understand the physics well enough; at least well enough to drive a nail. Life is funny. Ironically, I don't really believe in evolution as it is commonly presented. We'll have to talk about it sometime. I tend to agree there may be a spark that outlives us though the rational side of me suspects this spark lives on in others. The root of the problem is language. People can't see that it is language which created humanity by allowing knowledge to be passed from generation to generation. They can't see it because modern language takes a perspective from infinite distance. We can't see that the biggest cause of miscommunication is that perspectives still vary even though it is defined as it is. People have different experiences which lead to different perspectives despite the nature of modern language. We can't see language as the root of human progress because we thought ourselves into existence. "I think therefore I am"! From this perspective it's thought that precedes all rather than the language in which thought occurs. This underpins language and science though, obviously, science goes on to define basic axioms and terms so it actually works. This perspective is unique to modern man. The paradigm works well to promote science but it works extremely poorly to differentiate good new ideas from bad ones. We communicate in one language and perform science in another. Lol. It's not that you are wrong so much as the perspective is "funny". I understand the perspective and mostly shared it at one time. You believe humans are intelligent and can work together cooperatively to promote the common good and human progress. I don't believe any of these concepts are rooted in the real world. It is language that underlies human progress because it is language which allows us to learn enough to come up with new ideas. There's no such thing as intelligence at all (as people define it) and it is cleverness born of language which manifests as ideas. Cleverness is as much an event, as ideas, rather than a state. To some extent there is a correlation between what people call "intelligence" and the ability to learn but people read far more into the abilty to learn than what exists. Almost anyone can learn and some people merely require more time. "Intelligence" per se isn't something real. There is very little difference between man and other animals on this parameter. Science works not because people cooperate. Science is driven by new ideas and always has been and this applies to all of God's creatures rather than only men. Some of the most important ideas since the dawn of time are the ability to have an idea of how to devise experiment or how to make an observation to confirm theory. The latter is how ancient man and animals progressed. Nothing new can happen without a new idea. Even serendipity is dependent on the observer recognizing an event for its underlying cause: He must have an idea of what caused a thing or event. This is based on his knowledge which he acquired through language. I certainly agree. This would fall under the umbrella of "factual and logical". If an idea or any of its premises are not consistyent with theory and observation then it's not logical or it's not factual or neither. This doesn't mean evidence can't be interpreted in another way but theory and observation can't be reinterpreted. I tend to think any model can be compared with nature and math though some are far more difficult than others. If the presenter could do this himself it seems unlikely he'd post on this forum at all. One of the reasons I post here is that I can't yet prove there are no worlds with pyramids built with ramps and hope to get other peoples' ideas of how to prove it. The model can't be tested in the real world because conservative scientists refuse to perform the tests and restrict access to all outsiders. I'd agree that human progress is real. But I tend to believe that even after the truth wins out there is a tendency for new people to simply have new biases founded on the new truth. We still will see what we expect until we learn ways not to and there's hardly a mad rush to study the issue. I've always thought that science is mistaught and should be more widely understood. The average person should have a better education in science. Most scientists make absurd and unsupported statements or conjectures from time to time. Some of it is simply caused by language but there is indication that some do not understand metaphysics or the nature of scientific knowledge. There is a tendency even among the best educated and the keenest observers to see the expected. Where most people will see such things as human nature I believe it is an artefact of modern language. "Human nature" is almost infinitely flexible but we have become accustomed to infinite perspective and the idea that we exist because we think. We act on beliefs and see what we expect even if we are trained scientists with lots of ideas.

Are you suggesting then that if someone came up with the unified field theory it should be ignored unless it has some math? Ideas that significantly change paradigms are few and far between. Most new ideas are simply building on the existing understanding. If that were true, science would never advance. Therefore it is clearly not true. It requires patience and persistence to change peoples' beliefs. Plate tectonics wasn't widely accepted overnight and many scientists and geologists never did accept it. Paradigm changes are often demographic in nature.

I wasn't aware that there was such a fine line the moderators have to walk. I'm obviously aware of the sensitivity to drifting off topic or "soapboxing". I've seen far more encouragement for new ideas here than anywhere else. I could tell stories of how on some sites everyone bends over backward to withhold not only encouragement but even facts that strongly support a new idea. So many of these new ideas here fall squarely into a hard science so they can be looked at more objectively which is likely the reason new ideas get a better hearing here than most sites. But the fact remains that people in general have a very difficult time looking at things that overturn their beliefs. Swansont pointed out that science is not belief but the fact is that all real knowledge is visceral knowledge. Science creates knowledge but until you know something is real, until you have experience in a reality then it has more characteristics of belief to an individual than fact. In the 1940's the crust of the earth was solid then it started moving. People didn't see the movement until it was shown. In the 1850's surgeons didn't have time to wash their hands before trying to save a life in an operation and most patients died of the resulting infections. Now we see the cause. People have always scoffed at new ideas and the fact is that most new ideas aren't new, aren't true, or have highly limited applicability. It's natural to discount new ideas. But all ideas result from the cleverness of the individual who dreamed them up. Without new ideas we'd still be living in caves and digging for grubs. That they are better heard here than other places is why I read and post here.

Yes and no. Certainly I strongly believe that most of what people hold true as "science" is primarily belief. I also hold a unique to me opinion that modern experimental science is only one kind of science that can be used to discover reality. As such it is merely a tool and the job it does in learning about reality are determined by the nature of the toool. Modern science is a sort of prism for seeing nature but there is far more to nature than only the rainbow we see. We then have grave difficulty reintegrating this spectrum into human life and making it relevant to individuals. Most people see the rainbow and the prism to the exclusion of everything else and believe it's all that exists or they never learn about science at all and merely reap the "benefits" of the technology that is cast off of experimental science. I believe humans used to use an animal science that automatically integrated all learning to all individuals in the form of a metaphysical language. Real science is actually somewhat "hollow" because our ignorance is still so vast it has little applicability to the real world except to the degree knowledge manifests in technology and machines. It can't at this time provide a blueprint for living and every philosopher almost has to start at the beginning because concepts are so difficult to communicate. Applied science which might integrate science, technology, and a way to live is far behind the times. People walking around like web connected zombies is not the sort of integration to which I refer. People need to be able to think in scientific concepts (theory) and to understand the metaphysical bases for these theories. But instead there is a strong tendency to see things in terms of the paradigm. People see the rainbow instead of the prism. Science is not belief but much of the way people understand science much of the time is belief. Most people and especially those with less scientific education virtually hold science as a religion and worship at the altar of technology.

You touch on one of the problems of modern science and the biggest problem with the way people understand science. I agree that the lack of knowledge of current science can be appalling in some of the threads on this forum and I never imagined I could get so far out of the loop. Life just gets in the way of many things we'd like to do and priorities can change. But the point is that so long as the premises and logic are correct there is no justification to reject any hypothesis. We live in a world which many believe is merely one of an infinite number all containing pyramids built with ramps. All of theoretical science does not exist on the high ground. While logic is commonly dismissed as a means of doing much science other than hypothesis formation the fact is that nature seems to eventually come to be understood as being logical. Where it isn't logical it's usually primarily the result of incomplete knowledge and insufficient theory. Of course a lot of threads are exceedingly informal, light hearted, or poorly researched but the authors usually abandon these as they are intended as trial balloons or skeet. I think some of the issues people have with the threads here is that they expect any new idea to be wrapped up in a nice neat bow with all the math complete and ready for publication. Of course such things aren't going to appear on a speculations board except rarely. What are likely to appear is various ideas that rearrange the facts by which we interpret reality. They will be ideas that reinterpret the facts known by the poster. Some are too far over my head to state an opinion and some are obviously wrong because they have the facts or logic wrong. It's not my contention thjat any thread ever begun on this forum was necessarily right. It's my contention that a paradigm rewriting correct idea that appears on any forum or in any venue will usually be dismissed because people already have the answer and that answer has always been the paradigm. The paradigm has always been amended and rewritten but it takes time and patience to rewrite it. People do not readily change their minds because we see what we expect. We are constantly bombarded with confirmation of all our beliefs. In the face of such overwhelming evidence most individuals will go totheir graves with essentially the same beliefs their whole lives. And these "beliefs" certainly include all the paradigms created by language and experimental science. I think the scrutiny here is very good as well as the fair consideration of new ideas. It's just that you can't go anywhere at all and expect people to be able to be able to consider paradigm upsetting ideas. Ideas that build on existing scientific paradigms are expected to be presented with math even though the math might be over the head of the presenter.

Again, I specifically stated this is one of the best sites for hearing out a new idea. That you think people are good at hearing out new ideas might be indicative of your beliefs closely matching the paradigms.

You have everything working against you but this will be true no matter how or where you try to get a new idea across. People can't see what they don't expect and all new ideas are unexpected. This site is probably among the best sites for both finding expertise on most aspects of science as well as hearing out new ideas. That it does so poor a job at the latter is reflective of human nature and the inability to communicate well rather than the group of individual posters. The only tools to combat the "omniscience" that we all share are patience and persistence. Having an active forum where speculative ideas are welcome is a large asset despite my inability to fully utilize it to date. Hang tough. I might or might not follow your threads but I certainly think it's possible that consensus can be achieved. "edited" to add; Math is the language of science. Or at least math is the most important part of the language of science. Just as in everyday life reality exists even before it can be quantified and set to the music of math. Force equaled mass X acceleration long before Newton, and the sun "came up" every day even before men knew it was the same sun which appeared. Just because you can't set a concept to math doesn't mean that it can't or never will be. Reality exists outside of the tool used to determine its nature. Even if no complicated language or math existed nature would still perform "infinite" calculations at every point in the universe for all time.

Semantics is always irrelevant. To the degree that we can support theory simulations are refective of nature.

Thank you very much. This leads to two more questions. Is this carapace/ pronotum believe to help protect it from predation by birds? Is there much variation in the thickness of the exoskeleton vis a vis dorsal and ventral aspects? The root question is; Could the pronotum ever be considered part of a dorsal exoskeleton rather than just an adjunct to the entire exoskeleton? I understand that it is not classified as such now. I'm trying to understand a very ancient reference to the insect which refers to the "dorsal carapace" (if the translation is good) but seems to imply the shape of the abdominal exoskeleton. It certainly seems that if there is a single carapace then calling it the "dorsal carapace" is at the least redundant. There's no reason to believe their classification system would be similar to ours. Any further help would be very appreciated as well. I might add that the translator in this case had little knowledge of biology or anatomy.

I believe the "carapace" protects only the thorax of the grasshopper above the legs. If true is it also true that the abdomen is protected with an exoskeleton? Is this exoskeleton on both dorsal and ventral sides?

We can't really stage it in the way to which I'm referring. Building a dam and placing turbines in the way of a river could be thoughtof as such but it's not the point. Modern science employs observation and experiment and it matters little if the scientist is observing an experiment or something "natural". Experiments simply lead more directly to theory. But this isn't the way ancient science worked. If results are based on logic then it simply follows that anything you do to affect observation is "cheating" and will affect outcomes, conclusions, and theory. I'm sure they did actually plan many observations and along various parameters. For instance if you want to observe bats you don't go looking for them at noon. If you want to see tides then you attend to the moon. "Experiment" is certainly a staging of nature since all variables have to be excluded or accounted for. You need to isolate the thing you want to see. It's done in a lab where everything can be controlled. Certainly experiment occurs in the real world but usually even the simplest experiments don't occur naturally. They require someone to invent them and set them up. Yes. This is modern human science (observation > experiment). This science is unique. Other science is observation > logic. Most of what we consider "experiment" is illegitimate to this process.

"Experiment" is the isolation of variables. It is a sort of staging of the way nature works. This concept would be abhorant to an observation based science. Animals and ancient man seek the ways in which all of nature rhymed with itself. Things that didn't fit ancient science were simply held aside until their pattern was deduced and then confirmed through observation. In a sense you could say that each species has its own science. But be this as it may there are other means to acquire and organize knowledge than experimental science. "Context" to us is language, or perhaps more accurately, knowledge. Without this knowledge reality still exists. And consciousness still exists. We have chosen to understand reality through modern language and beliefs. We have invented experimental science to gain knowledge about nature and we quantify logic to manipulate and understand these laws. We believe we exist because we think, but a rabbit still runs from the fox. Indeed! And when they saw the same sunspots the next morning they would postulate that it was the same sun from the previous day.

If words are adequately defined and are consistent with reality (nature) then science can be carried on through observation and without experiment. I believe this is how animals invent things and how humans operated until 4000 years ago. It can't be done with modern language outside of the individual because results can't be communicated such that progress will occur. Progress is the result of the compounding of knowledge and learning of many individuals over many generations. Today we must use scientific (experimental) terminology for such communication and math is the quantified logic which accompanies it. This is the same effect in philosophy; that little progress is made because of the difficulty of building on the thinking of earlier research. This impacts applied science and all areas of human activity and gives us a warped picture of science and its meaning to individuals. I have no idea how many types of science exist and was rather surprised to find a second one but a little bird told me they are probably all based on observation. Logic must surely underlie all of them but it doesn't have to be the type of math we started with nor any of the maths that exist today. Understanding of reality is not dependent on experiment. A rabbit doesn't need to get caught by a fox to know it needs to get away the next time. Reality exists and we are mere play actors within it. We can write our own script or use one provided but we are still beholden to the foxes of the world. If the script is "wrong" there may be an unhappy ending. There may be an entirely unscripted ending.

I stand corrected. It was my understanding that this was "settled" science and anyone who didn't agree was a knuckle dragging troglodyte. We are afterall spending billions of dollars so it seemed that when naysayers are called "deniers" etc then there must be a pretty strong belief in the computer models. I don't track the US media at all any longer. Most politicians talk out of both sides of their face and vote opposite what they say anyway. It was meant as a more subtle poke at politicians.