Comments on: Public Rejects Right-Wing Narrative On Media Coverage Of Iraq http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:41:56 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: PoliticalTruthWatch.Com » Blog Archive » Administration Reports Undermine Right Wing’s Media Bashing on Iraq http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/comment-page-2/#comment-484185 PoliticalTruthWatch.Com » Blog Archive » Administration Reports Undermine Right Wing’s Media Bashing on Iraq Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:34:06 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/#comment-484185 [...] So far, the public isn’t buying the spin: 60 percent of Americans believe that the media are reporting events in Iraq either accurately or better than they really are. And they’re right. Eyewitness accounts both by the Bush administration and by journalists on the ground back up the media’s perspective of the chaos and refute the right-wing’s claims of journalistic neglect: State Department Human Rights Practices report on Iraq, 3/8/06: [A] climate of extreme violence in which people were killed for political and other reasons. … Bombings, executions, killings, kidnappings, shootings, and intimidation were a daily occurrence throughout all regions and sectors of society. An illustrative list of these attacks, even a highly selective one, could scarcely reflect the broad dimension of the violence. [...] [...] So far, the public isn’t buying the spin: 60 percent of Americans believe that the media are reporting events in Iraq either accurately or better than they really are. And they’re right. Eyewitness accounts both by the Bush administration and by journalists on the ground back up the media’s perspective of the chaos and refute the right-wing’s claims of journalistic neglect: State Department Human Rights Practices report on Iraq, 3/8/06: [A] climate of extreme violence in which people were killed for political and other reasons. … Bombings, executions, killings, kidnappings, shootings, and intimidation were a daily occurrence throughout all regions and sectors of society. An illustrative list of these attacks, even a highly selective one, could scarcely reflect the broad dimension of the violence. [...]

]]> By: The Political Mind Field » Administration Reports Undermine Right Wing’s Media Bashing on Iraq http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/comment-page-2/#comment-484152 The Political Mind Field » Administration Reports Undermine Right Wing’s Media Bashing on Iraq Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:16:53 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/#comment-484152 [...] So far, the public isn’t buying the spin: 60 percent of Americans believe that the media are reporting events in Iraq either accurately or better than they really are. And they’re right. [...] [...] So far, the public isn’t buying the spin: 60 percent of Americans believe that the media are reporting events in Iraq either accurately or better than they really are. And they’re right. [...]

]]> By: Think Progress » Administration Reports Refute Right-Wing’s Media Bashing http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/comment-page-2/#comment-483909 Think Progress » Administration Reports Refute Right-Wing’s Media Bashing Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:52:33 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/#comment-483909 [...] So far, the public isn’t buying the spin: 60 percent of Americans believe that the media are reporting events in Iraq either accurately or better than they really are. And they’re right. [...] [...] So far, the public isn’t buying the spin: 60 percent of Americans believe that the media are reporting events in Iraq either accurately or better than they really are. And they’re right. [...]

]]> By: Think Progress » Welcome To Townhall World: Where The Media Is Always Wrong And Bush Is Always Right http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/comment-page-2/#comment-483061 Think Progress » Welcome To Townhall World: Where The Media Is Always Wrong And Bush Is Always Right Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:16:44 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/#comment-483061 [...] Sixty percent of Americans believe that the media is reporting things in Iraq either accurately or better than they really are. Just 29% approve of Bush’s handling of the Iraq war. But if you watched today’s “townhall” event with President Bush you’d never know it. [...] [...] Sixty percent of Americans believe that the media is reporting things in Iraq either accurately or better than they really are. Just 29% approve of Bush’s handling of the Iraq war. But if you watched today’s “townhall” event with President Bush you’d never know it. [...]

]]> By: WaltTheMan http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/comment-page-2/#comment-478548 WaltTheMan Sat, 18 Mar 2006 01:09:07 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/#comment-478548 "Our" Universe is but a pimple in time. The black hole that contains us will continue for trillions of years. The Universe as we know it will dissipate into stellar dust sometime in the next seventy five billion years. I don't really care about that as I probably be dead by then. But that basically describes W's position on the environment. “Our” Universe is but a pimple in time. The black hole that contains us will continue for trillions of years. The Universe as we know it will dissipate into stellar dust sometime in the next seventy five billion years. I don’t really care about that as I probably be dead by then. But that basically describes W’s position on the environment.

]]> By: Tracy http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/comment-page-2/#comment-477445 Tracy Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:25:52 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/#comment-477445 #94 "the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began." Then we don't have a debate here and we probably wasted our time and effort really debating....well nothing. Although I thought I made it rather clear early on that I was not disagreeing with the evolution of the universe over time as presented by the Big Bang Theory. #94

“the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began.”

Then we don’t have a debate here and we probably wasted our time and effort really debating….well nothing. Although I thought I made it rather clear early on that I was not disagreeing with the evolution of the universe over time as presented by the Big Bang Theory.

]]> By: Gregor Samsa http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/comment-page-2/#comment-477349 Gregor Samsa Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:04:19 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/#comment-477349 <i>I am debating the premise or the event itself, which leads to the notion that there was nothing before the “big bang”, which to any logical person is illogical. If you can prove the time is a finite dimension, then entire idea this “event” is plausible. Again I think we as humans DO NOT know how the universe “started”….if it did at all. Comment by Tracy — March 16, 2006 @ 10:46 am </i> There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements: * The BBT [Big Bang Theory] is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time. * BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like. * The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space. The famous cosmologist P. J. E. Peebles stated this succinctly in the January 2001 edition of Scientific American (the whole issue was about cosmology and is worth reading!): "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began." (...) The simplest description of the theory would be something like: "In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler." <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#bigbang" rel="nofollow">TalkOrigins: Evidence for the Big Bang</a> (...)the observational evidence began to support the idea that the universe evolved from a hot dense state. Since the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 it has been regarded as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos. Virtually all theoretical work in cosmology now involves extensions and refinements to the basic Big Bang theory. Much of the current work in cosmology includes understanding how galaxies form in the context of the Big Bang, understanding what happened at the Big Bang, and reconciling observations with the basic theory. Huge advances in Big Bang cosmology were made in the late 1990s and the early 21st century as a result of major advances in telescope technology in combination with large amounts of satellite data such as that from COBE, the Hubble Space Telescope and WMAP. Such data has allowed cosmologists to calculate many of the parameters of the Big Bang to a new level of precision and led to the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. (See dark energy.) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia: Big Bang</a> I am debating the premise or the event itself, which leads to the notion that there was nothing before the “big bang”, which to any logical person is illogical. If you can prove the time is a finite dimension, then entire idea this “event” is plausible. Again I think we as humans DO NOT know how the universe “started”….if it did at all.
Comment by Tracy — March 16, 2006 @ 10:46 am

There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements:
* The BBT [Big Bang Theory] is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
* BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
* The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.
The famous cosmologist P. J. E. Peebles stated this succinctly in the January 2001 edition of Scientific American (the whole issue was about cosmology and is worth reading!): “That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an ‘explosion’ – the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began.” (…)
The simplest description of the theory would be something like: “In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler.”
TalkOrigins: Evidence for the Big Bang

(…)the observational evidence began to support the idea that the universe evolved from a hot dense state. Since the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 it has been regarded as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos. Virtually all theoretical work in cosmology now involves extensions and refinements to the basic Big Bang theory. Much of the current work in cosmology includes understanding how galaxies form in the context of the Big Bang, understanding what happened at the Big Bang, and reconciling observations with the basic theory.
Huge advances in Big Bang cosmology were made in the late 1990s and the early 21st century as a result of major advances in telescope technology in combination with large amounts of satellite data such as that from COBE, the Hubble Space Telescope and WMAP. Such data has allowed cosmologists to calculate many of the parameters of the Big Bang to a new level of precision and led to the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. (See dark energy.)
Wikipedia: Big Bang

]]> By: Tracy http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/comment-page-2/#comment-477211 Tracy Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:46:40 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/#comment-477211 #90 "I didn’t -observed phenomenon is aka fact." "So, you don’t accept the existence of things that have not been directly observed, eh?" Yes I do, but AGAIN remember I am talking about the Big Bang itself, i.e. the "event"...something that WAS NOT been observed. Also remember I am not debating with you about the subsequent events after the "big bang", I am debating the premise or the event itself, which leads to the notion that there was nothing before the "big bang", which to any logical person is illogical. If you can prove the time is a finite dimension, then entire idea this "event" is plausible. Again I think we as humans DO NOT know how the universe "started"....if it did at all. #90

“I didn’t -observed phenomenon is aka fact.”

“So, you don’t accept the existence of things that have not been directly observed, eh?”

Yes I do, but AGAIN remember I am talking about the Big Bang itself, i.e. the “event”…something that WAS NOT been observed. Also remember I am not debating with you about the subsequent events after the “big bang”, I am debating the premise or the event itself, which leads to the notion that there was nothing before the “big bang”, which to any logical person is illogical. If you can prove the time is a finite dimension, then entire idea this “event” is plausible. Again I think we as humans DO NOT know how the universe “started”….if it did at all.

]]> By: WaltTheMan http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/comment-page-2/#comment-476929 WaltTheMan Thu, 16 Mar 2006 03:31:44 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/#comment-476929 This is off-subject, but #91 sort of broughtn it up: Advances in science are incremental. When I was a child, I could watch an electron beam vary as the inputs to the grids modulated the electron stream in an imperfectly evacuated vacuum tube. By about 1955, there were near perfect vacuum tubes. Guess what? An invention from 1949 came into focus as the transistor came into the fray. Problem was that there were five to six mechanical joints in each transistor. Viola - the integrated circuit, only mechanical joints were in the external connections. Later came the invention of the micro-chip. What this has spawned is that a computer from the mid sixties that would require millions of mechanical connections or it's equivalent of the fifties (if it could have been produced) that would have required trillions of mechanical connections is a multifold increase in reliability in today's machines where only a few thousand mechanical connections are required. I just repoped (Tubes and electrolytic capacitors) my EICO Williamson power amp at a cost of $4000. Doesn't sound as crisp as my BOSE, but the music seems to flow smoother in the Willie. So much for progress. This is off-subject, but #91 sort of broughtn it up:
Advances in science are incremental. When I was a child, I could watch an electron beam vary as the inputs to the grids modulated the electron stream in an imperfectly evacuated vacuum tube. By about 1955, there were near perfect vacuum tubes. Guess what? An invention from 1949 came into focus as the transistor came into the fray. Problem was that there were five to six mechanical joints in each transistor. Viola – the integrated circuit, only mechanical joints were in the external connections. Later came the invention of the micro-chip. What this has spawned is that a computer from the mid sixties that would require millions of mechanical connections or it’s equivalent of the fifties (if it could have been produced) that would have required trillions of mechanical connections is a multifold increase in reliability in today’s machines where only a few thousand mechanical connections are required.
I just repoped (Tubes and electrolytic capacitors) my EICO Williamson power amp at a cost of $4000. Doesn’t sound as crisp as my BOSE, but the music seems to flow smoother in the Willie. So much for progress.

]]> By: interested http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/comment-page-2/#comment-476839 interested Thu, 16 Mar 2006 01:25:02 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/#comment-476839 #90 not when it was supposed to have happened billions of years ago. and science can be manipulated just like anything else. cloning anyone? #90 not when it was supposed to have happened billions of years ago. and science can be manipulated just like anything else. cloning anyone?

]]> By: Gregor Samsa http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/comment-page-2/#comment-476790 Gregor Samsa Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:18:05 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/#comment-476790 <i>How do you come to the conclusion that a human produced explanation of a phenomenon that has not been observed is AKA fact? Comment by Tracy — March 15, 2006 @ 6:50 pm </i> I didn't -observed phenomenon is aka fact. Also, other phenomena have not been observed either. Gravity, for instance, has not been observed. No, seeing an apple fall from a tree is <b>not</b> observing gravity, but its effects on the apple. We infer the existence of gravitational forces due to their effects on us, and everything around us -like the apple. Same for atoms. Neutrons. Electricity. Magnetic fields. These have never been observed either, but we have plenty of evidence they exist. So, you don't accept the existence of things that have not been directly observed, eh? How do you come to the conclusion that a human produced explanation of a phenomenon that has not been observed is AKA fact?
Comment by Tracy — March 15, 2006 @ 6:50 pm

I didn’t -observed phenomenon is aka fact.

Also, other phenomena have not been observed either. Gravity, for instance, has not been observed. No, seeing an apple fall from a tree is not observing gravity, but its effects on the apple. We infer the existence of gravitational forces due to their effects on us, and everything around us -like the apple. Same for atoms. Neutrons. Electricity. Magnetic fields. These have never been observed either, but we have plenty of evidence they exist.

So, you don’t accept the existence of things that have not been directly observed, eh?

]]> By: Tracy http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/comment-page-2/#comment-476784 Tracy Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:08:50 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/#comment-476784 #81 I never said that theories are useless, just the theories are base on limited information and knowledge. #81

I never said that theories are useless, just the theories are base on limited information and knowledge.

]]> By: Tracy http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/comment-page-2/#comment-476770 Tracy Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:50:22 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/#comment-476770 "You don’t have to accept anything you don’t like." This has nothing to do with accepting things I don't like. It has to do with not accepting things that have NOT been observed, i.e. the "Big Bang" was not observed. You yourself said that science can't and will never be able to explain all of the unanswered questions of the universe. "But if the explanation of an observed phenomenon (aka fact) built upon the best available evidence, and confirmed over and over again, does not make you think there must be something to it" Not all explanations of an observed phenomenon are AKA facts, even if they are built upon the best avaliable evidence. How do you come to the conclusion that a human produced explanation of a phenomenon that has not been observed is AKA fact? “You don’t have to accept anything you don’t like.”

This has nothing to do with accepting things I don’t like. It has to do with not accepting things that have NOT been observed, i.e. the “Big Bang” was not observed. You yourself said that science can’t and will never be able to explain all of the unanswered questions of the universe.

“But if the explanation of an observed phenomenon (aka fact) built upon the best available evidence, and confirmed over and over again, does not make you think there must be something to it”

Not all explanations of an observed phenomenon are AKA facts, even if they are built upon the best avaliable evidence. How do you come to the conclusion that a human produced explanation of a phenomenon that has not been observed is AKA fact?

]]> By: TerrytheTurtle http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/comment-page-2/#comment-476753 TerrytheTurtle Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:30:04 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/#comment-476753 I'm frankly unconvinced that any of the caves I can see across on the other side of my valley are capable of supporting life. I’m frankly unconvinced that any of the caves I can see across on the other side of my valley are capable of supporting life.

]]> By: Gregor Samsa http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/comment-page-2/#comment-476723 Gregor Samsa Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:09:27 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/#comment-476723 Terry -that was funny. Really funny ;-) Unbelievable -Thanks. Trying to stay sane is a full-time job nowadays. Tracy -what can I say? You don't have to accept anything you don't like. But if the explanation of an observed phenomenon (aka fact) built upon the best available evidence, and confirmed over and over again, does not make you think there must be something to it, then... well, why even bother? Things don't fall to the ground, the Earth is immobile at the center of the universe, the gods make people ill, and let's all go back to our caves and pray to the rain god or something... I give up... Terry -that was funny. Really funny ;-)

Unbelievable -Thanks. Trying to stay sane is a full-time job nowadays.

Tracy -what can I say? You don’t have to accept anything you don’t like. But if the explanation of an observed phenomenon (aka fact) built upon the best available evidence, and confirmed over and over again, does not make you think there must be something to it, then… well, why even bother? Things don’t fall to the ground, the Earth is immobile at the center of the universe, the gods make people ill, and let’s all go back to our caves and pray to the rain god or something… I give up…

]]> By: Tracy http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/comment-page-2/#comment-476662 Tracy Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:29:33 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/#comment-476662 #82 "You are trying really hard to make a scientific theory into a conjecture, speculation, or wild guess." No I am not. I am just saying that a theory does not have to be accepted as fact. You might have already stated that. Like you said a theory TRIES to explain are observed phenomena. "A scientific theory does not seek to explain the unexplainable, don’t be ridiculous." You are right my mistake. Let me restate: A scientific theory is an attempt to explain the unknown or unproven. "And no, we will never know anything for sure. Ever. Not every aspect of everything in the universe will ever be explained 100%. It is simply not possible." That is all I have been trying to convey here...for a while now. It is OK for we as humans to say we don't really know for sure how the universe started or that time speeds up as we approach the speed of light or that humans decended from apes, ect.... #82

“You are trying really hard to make a scientific theory into a conjecture, speculation, or wild guess.”

No I am not. I am just saying that a theory does not have to be accepted as fact. You might have already stated that. Like you said a theory TRIES to explain are observed phenomena.

“A scientific theory does not seek to explain the unexplainable, don’t be ridiculous.”

You are right my mistake. Let me restate: A scientific theory is an attempt to explain the unknown or unproven.

“And no, we will never know anything for sure. Ever. Not every aspect of everything in the universe will ever be explained 100%. It is simply not possible.”

That is all I have been trying to convey here…for a while now. It is OK for we as humans to say we don’t really know for sure how the universe started or that time speeds up as we approach the speed of light or that humans decended from apes, ect….

]]> By: unbelievable http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/comment-page-2/#comment-476626 unbelievable Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:09:27 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/#comment-476626 <em>Religion’s contribution to science are the shackles of ignorance tying down a philosophy of discovery. It has always been and always will be. Comment by TerrytheTurtle — March 15, 2006 @ 4:28 pm Plus, the fact that gravity is “just a theory” doesn’t make you want to jump off a tall building, right? Or does it? Comment by Gregor Samsa — March 15, 2006 @ 4:38 pm </em> I really love you guys ;) It's so nice to be around sanity and common sense on such a regular basis. Religion’s contribution to science are the shackles of ignorance tying down a philosophy of discovery. It has always been and always will be.

Comment by TerrytheTurtle — March 15, 2006 @ 4:28 pm

Plus, the fact that gravity is “just a theory” doesn’t make you want to jump off a tall building, right? Or does it?

Comment by Gregor Samsa — March 15, 2006 @ 4:38 pm

I really love you guys ;) It’s so nice to be around sanity and common sense on such a regular basis.

]]> By: TerrytheTurtle http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/comment-page-2/#comment-476620 TerrytheTurtle Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:06:36 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/#comment-476620 #82, a couple of hail marys and another dead chicken and I'll be just fine - how many floors? #82, a couple of hail marys and another dead chicken and I’ll be just fine – how many floors?

]]> By: Gregor Samsa http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/comment-page-2/#comment-476579 Gregor Samsa Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:38:28 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/#comment-476579 <i>To me that means that a theory is man’s attempt to explain the unexplainable, i.e. we really don’t know…for sure. Comment by Tracy — March 15, 2006 @ 3:57 pm </i> You are trying really hard to make a scientific theory into a conjecture, speculation, or wild guess. It isn't. A scientific theory is supported by the evidence. The more favorable evidence, the more confirmed a theory becomes. Scientific theories are the best model of reality we have at our disposal. A scientific theory does not seek to explain the unexplainable, don't be ridiculous. That's an illogical statement and an oxymoron. What it does try to explain are <b>observed phenomena</b>, by natural, physical means. Things we know happen. Things for which we have evidence, aka, facts. Scientific theories do change, obviously, if conflicting evidence is introduced. That is the beauty of science. If the explanation does not fit the facts, then the explanation must be changed to include the new evidence since a scientific theory is -by its very nature- descriptive. What would you think of someone who ignores the evidence when trying to explain an observed phenomena? Wouldn't you think they are, well, deranged? And no, we will never know anything for sure. Ever. Not every aspect of everything in the universe will ever be explained 100%. It is simply not possible. You are asking science to reach a goal that is not attainable. What we can do is build models of reality in order to explain, understand, and explore our universe. Plus, the fact that gravity is "just a theory" doesn't make you want to jump off a tall building, right? Or does it? To me that means that a theory is man’s attempt to explain the unexplainable, i.e. we really don’t know…for sure.
Comment by Tracy — March 15, 2006 @ 3:57 pm

You are trying really hard to make a scientific theory into a conjecture, speculation, or wild guess. It isn’t. A scientific theory is supported by the evidence. The more favorable evidence, the more confirmed a theory becomes. Scientific theories are the best model of reality we have at our disposal.

A scientific theory does not seek to explain the unexplainable, don’t be ridiculous. That’s an illogical statement and an oxymoron. What it does try to explain are observed phenomena, by natural, physical means. Things we know happen. Things for which we have evidence, aka, facts.

Scientific theories do change, obviously, if conflicting evidence is introduced. That is the beauty of science. If the explanation does not fit the facts, then the explanation must be changed to include the new evidence since a scientific theory is -by its very nature- descriptive. What would you think of someone who ignores the evidence when trying to explain an observed phenomena? Wouldn’t you think they are, well, deranged?

And no, we will never know anything for sure. Ever. Not every aspect of everything in the universe will ever be explained 100%. It is simply not possible. You are asking science to reach a goal that is not attainable. What we can do is build models of reality in order to explain, understand, and explore our universe. Plus, the fact that gravity is “just a theory” doesn’t make you want to jump off a tall building, right? Or does it?

]]> By: TerrytheTurtle http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/comment-page-2/#comment-476562 TerrytheTurtle Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:28:49 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/14/media-coverage-of-iraq/#comment-476562 #80, doesn't mean to say that a theory is useless because it does not fully describe the natural world. It's how we use our theories and what we do with the gaps in our theories that make the difference. For example, Newton's law of gravity is wrong - it had in it the seemingly illogical premise that a body over there could exert an unseen force on another over there at an inverse square of the distance between. What transmitted the force? He didn't know - he gave up and said God does it. Now Einstein came up with a better theory that explained all of Newtonian gravitation and the illogical premise - curved space-time. But what did the Apollo astronauts do? They went with Newton's equations because they were good enough 'for government work'. Now do I like Newton, throw my hands up in the air and say 'God granted us a miracle' when the tornado rips through my neighbor Bubba's trailer instead of mine (ignoring the supreme arrogance that God would spare me over Bubba), or do I take Chuck Yeager's approach when confronted with the sound barrier and put the 'heel to the steel' and find the answer to why my theory have seemingly illogical or unexplainable end cases? The so-called science of Intelligent Design tells us what the answer of organized religion is to that question. Religion's contribution to science are the shackles of ignorance tying down a philosophy of discovery. It has always been and always will be. #80, doesn’t mean to say that a theory is useless because it does not fully describe the natural world. It’s how we use our theories and what we do with the gaps in our theories that make the difference. For example, Newton’s law of gravity is wrong – it had in it the seemingly illogical premise that a body over there could exert an unseen force on another over there at an inverse square of the distance between. What transmitted the force? He didn’t know – he gave up and said God does it. Now Einstein came up with a better theory that explained all of Newtonian gravitation and the illogical premise – curved space-time. But what did the Apollo astronauts do? They went with Newton’s equations because they were good enough ‘for government work’.

Now do I like Newton, throw my hands up in the air and say ‘God granted us a miracle’ when the tornado rips through my neighbor Bubba’s trailer instead of mine (ignoring the supreme arrogance that God would spare me over Bubba), or do I take Chuck Yeager’s approach when confronted with the sound barrier and put the ‘heel to the steel’ and find the answer to why my theory have seemingly illogical or unexplainable end cases? The so-called science of Intelligent Design tells us what the answer of organized religion is to that question.

Religion’s contribution to science are the shackles of ignorance tying down a philosophy of discovery. It has always been and always will be.

]]>