/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8995168
>>8995257
>>8995260
buttmad soft scientist detected
t. paleofag

>>8696910
>You always find straw man arguments to pick.
Your complaint >>8691755 >>8692695 was literally that I was responding to the argument made instead of assuming that they'd made a better argument. That's not strawmanning; that's just arguing.
>Trees were hundreds of feet taller
literally a lie
>mostly because of CO2
also literally a lie
>thousands of years ago
you still can't get the timescale right; the Carboniferous (era of massive widespread coal swamps) was ~360-300 Mya. you are off by literally five orders of magnitude, which is the difference between the weight of a chipmunk and the weight of an elephant.
>the soil composition has gotten richer.
the whole point I made is that soil nutrients are CURRENTLY too sparse for CO2 to limit plant growth. that has not changed appreciably since the Industrial Revolution.

>>8697044
>why that if a model is currently indisputably the case how is it not a fact by the formal definition?
key word CURRENTLY. just because a model is 100% correct in a certain set of instances doesn't mean it will always hold true; remember the inductivist turkey.
as stated above, a good model approximates facts, which is different and distinct from actually being fact.
>You're now trying to argue that nothing is ever a fact
Nice strawman. I'm simply arguing that there is a difference between a model that seeks to describe some real-world phenomenon and the actual phenomenon itself, and that you're an idiot for insisting otherwise.

>>8697048
>The Law of Gravity is a fact, and that is a model.
Which Law of Gravity? The ancient idea that "all things fall down"? Not a fact. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation? It was a proposed natural law (which is less fact, more postulate) which has since been superseded by general relativity, which is a theory (which can generally be called a scientific fact). Of course, Newton's Law and GR are NOT models. (In fact, things falling down isn't a model either.)

>>8644776
how is it that when I see the Sun descend below the western horizon, a correspondent in Australia can see it high in the sky? how does the geometry work out such that this is possible?
>flatfags still can't answer this, will they ever recover?

>>8579401
A vast amount of scientists have spent their entire lives with a persona of intelligence and relishing in it. Media nowadays vilifies conservative policies and politicians for appearing stupid, which of course sometimes they are, and they subconsciously see any association with conservative policies as a threat to their intelligent persona.

This might not always be the case, but often most people who aren't moderates are psychologically/emotionally polarized to even consider the other sides viewpoints/claims. There's nothing wrong with it, and it isn't limited to scientists. It's a very human limitation that we must all deal with.