-22 votes

Is Ron Paul Anti-Science?

I’ve recently been doing my all to win my friends and family over to the Ron Paul camp, and one question I wasn’t prepared to answer for a friend of mine is what Dr. Paul believes about global climate change. I knew his energy platform favored increased domestic oil drilling and other free market solutions to our energy needs, but I was honestly quite astonished when I searched online and found videos of Ron Paul calling climate change a hoax. It’s one thing to say that the actions being proposed by the EPA or Nancy Pelosi or others to address global warming are excessive or plain wrong (e.g. there are a lot of good reasons cap-and-trade probably won’t work) but to deny the existence of one of the most well-researched and universally agreed upon scientific conclusions there is (I know, I know they’re still working on the details but almost no credible scientist doubts the general phenomenon) makes Paul look like just another out-of-touch, anti-science conservative.

I was similarly disturbed to hear he doesn’t believe in the theory of evolution – a “theory” nearly as well supported as gravity (we can watch it take place in a lab in fact - http://news.msu.edu/story/6993). Again, its one thing to have doubt about the ultimate conclusions of evolution (e.g. that the formation of life on Earth is just a meaningless coincidence with no divine aspect to it) and another to doubt the theory as a whole. Don’t get me wrong – there aren’t deal breakers for me and I still definitely support Ron Paul, but I find these rather backwards views troubling. Do I have inaccurate or incomplete info here? Can someone guide me to something better? I searched online for “Ron Paul global warming,” but when I opened the global warming issues page on his site (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/global-warming/) all I could get was a blank page.

I also have concerns about his environmental platform. It’s an issue he kind of sidesteps by saying “let the free market deal with it,” but I doubt the efficacy of this approach. Fundamental economics tells us it’s always in the best interests of a private company to externalize its costs as much as possible, i.e. a company that can push the costs of pollution, for example, onto society as a whole can then lower prices and be more competitive. A company that makes the same product, but pays to sort its garbage, filter its smokestacks, process its liquid waste into a benign form, etc… will have to add those costs to its product, become uncompetitive vis a vis the polluting company, and go out of business. It seems the only solution is a requirement for all companies to manage their pollution the same way so no one gets put at a competitive disadvantage for doing the right thing, and it’s hard to see how such agreements will be reached without government intervention. I’m not a big fan of the EPA either, and feel like many government environmental programs are very counterproductive, but I also have no faith in an unregulated market to do as well or better.

All through its history industrial progress has been followed by rampant pollution and environmental destruction; I don’t really see any precedent or theoretical basis for the idea that an unregulated market will be a clean one. On his site Dr. Paul’s solution is that corporate pollution can be dealt with by lawsuits in private court. However, this means that environmental destruction can only be dealt with after the damage has already been done. It also relies on the ability of private citizens to be the legal defenses and hotshot lawyers of billion-dollar companies (unlikely), and leave pollution of the commons (the ocean, the atmosphere) completely ignored. Furthermore, many court settlements in recent times have handed down punishments that were a small fraction of the profits made through the act of pollution – no deterrent at all, but rather an encouragement to continue such behavior.

I hope this can start a useful discussion and if someone can show me that I’ve been misled, so much the better, but please don’t waste everyone’s time with childish ad hominem attacks. Thank you.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

For what its worth

I am currently in my second year of a M.S. in Molecular Microbiology. I am working on a grant funded by the department of energy to study the possible benefits of using biomass to produce butanol as an alternative to ethanol. I would like to challenge your starting premise. You presume the science on Climate change and Evolution are settled. I don't want to rock your world but there are many colleagues of mine and Phd's who disagree with both of these. A fair amount of my experimentation has been centered around using selective pressure get the best bacteria for the job. I call this my eugenics project to be cute. But in reality this is not unlike reality. No matter how much selective pressure I exert upon these cells they are never going to become a multi-cellular organism. Including my undergraduate degree and research I have never been presented with any observable or testable experiment to show single celled organisms can progress to become multi-cellular. This is kind of a prerequisite for evolution. Furthermore even with our best genetic engineering techniques we cannot create a multi-cellular organism from a single celled organism. Evolution is widely accepted as valid simply because it is the best model we have for building phylogenetic trees. We do this in order to compare genomes and basically work to decode the DNA structures. It is necessary to constantly compare similarities of genetic code to pin down which sequences correspond to which traits. It just fits too well to throw away, but I would never say Dr. Paul is anti-science just because he recognizes seeing is believing and we can't see evolution taking place, merely adaptation to an environment. I realize this is getting long but I would also like to point out that over 70% of photosynthesis on earth takes place in the ocean via plankton. Keep this in mind, The ocean also serves another function, when the planet cools plants become less productive, aka they consume less CO2, however this is counterbalanced by the cold temperatures allowing the ocean to absorb more CO2 (you can learn about gases dissolving in to liquids in chemistry class this is how fish get enough O2) this takes CO2 out of the atmosphere and at the same time makes it more readily available to the plankton. However when the earth warms (I believe due to the increased sunspot activity we have been seeing lately) The ocean expels the CO2 into the atmosphere. This is what is happening now. But don't forget the plankton, as the oceans warm they also become more active and expand their range further north and south, a higher population would then take CO2 out of the atmosphere at an increased rate. Also the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a major limiting factor in plant growth, laboratory studies have shown that doubling the CO2 in a plants environment can increase growth by about half. Humans have increased CO2 by 3.676% altogether and I guess what I am saying is that it I would contest that the increased plant growth can easily make up for a little extra CO2 being produced. So if CO2 is causing climate change, (and i highly doubt it is) plant life should quickly catch up and we should quickly reach an equilibrium maybe a degree or two warmer. However I believe it is far more likely that the increased solar activity is warming the ocean and causing it to expel CO2 and has nothing to do with human activity. Here is an interesting video you might want to watch.

No, Ron Paul is NOT anti-science…

The following quote, and many others can be found at (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-...)

“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.]

…so the idea that Anthropogenic Global Warming is already decided by the scientists is an absolute fraud,… although, if you only get your news from the Main Stream Media, you can be forgiven for not knowing this. I would like for Ron Paul to call for a debate on Global Warming worldwide using Wikia technology. The skeptics have been trying for more than a decade to get the AGW advocates to debate them. So far, the advocates have consistently ducked the skeptics despite every enticement the skeptics could think to offer (see http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/).

On the topic of evolution …

First, how does belief or disbelief in evolution change any executive action Ron Paul would make in office? Disbelief in evolution is somewhat odd to me, but I find the supernaturalism of all the Abrahamic religions to be odd. Does all religious belief disqualify someone for public office? Good luck in finding ANY candidate for President who does not profess some belief in a supernatural supreme being. Atheists are more distrusted by the American voting public than any other group by far.

Second, given wild wolves, it is fairly easy to see how all the various breeds of dogs arose, and are still the same species. After all, dogs of all types can have sex producing fertile offspring. Man made selective breeding produced all the differing breeds. No argument here. Natural selection, in the wild, works similarly. But evolutionary theory presently has no demonstrable explanation for where did the first cellular life come from, nor how the Cambrian Explosion occurred some 530 million years ago, from which all the present day body forms originally evolved. Scientists take it, on faith, that a supernatural explanation is not required for these two unexplained gaps in our present day knowledge. I agree. If someone else chooses to believe in a supernatural bridge of the gaps, while I don’t agree, I won’t be throwing stones at them for their differing faith. Consider the question… does Occam's Razor favor the proposition that Reality existed first and begot Consciousness, or that Consciousness existed first and begot Existence. I believe you and I both would answer as Materialists that Reality begot Consciousness, but I am just not so smug and insistent about this answer. Professed Atheists have no chance at any public office at this time. We can only deal with the choices we are given, and hope for better in the future.

As for environmental pollution,… this is a form of aggression where a neighbor is dumping their garbage across their back yard fence into someone else’s yard. The government has a definite role in intervening to correct such trespasses. Check out (http://www.cato.org/environmental-law-regulation, and http://www.lp.org/issues/environment) for just two sources on libertarianism and the environment.

"The dearest ambition of a slave is not liberty, but to have a slave of his own."
Sir Richard Burton

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Science and "Scientific Consensus" dogma are not one in the same

what ever happened to scientific skepticism? What Ron Paul has said is that it makes him wonder when he realizes the pushers of anthropogenic global warming were warning of the ice age 30-40 years ago.

my angle is that it has clearly been warming for millions of years! after all, those Great Lakes-thingies were a glacier at one time. so, it would not be a stretch to say that there has been a warming trend for many, many millennium. I also note that there is clear evidence of glacial retreat since the beginning of the industrial revolution, but it's too bad that the record doesn't conclusively precede it (with the signage, photography, etc).

Alot of calculated deceptions have been targeted at the public, so the IPCC and company have no credibility in my eyes. Corporate interests expected huge profits as an effect of the proposed government mandates. The changes in our lifestyles proposed in Rio, Kyoto, and Copenhagen would have been a frightening coup for green totalitarianism. And ultimately for what- computer models?

As for evolution, it's outrageous that an individual would essentially be coerced into denouncing his/his constituents faith. Darwin was an elitist of epic proportions. I don't run around yelling that God created the Earth in seven days, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if sometime in our lifetime (from the perspective of a young person) we learn that Darwin was full of it.

That doesn't mean that species don't adapt over the centuries, but I don't swallow any dogma. I know how much the human race DOES NOT KNOW. If human beings are just evolved animals, than perhaps some humans are more adapted than others. Sounds a little like racial hygiene and the Nazi ideology.

Visit https://soundcloud.com/politics-of-freedom for all recent Ron Paul interviews, speeches, debates, forums, panels, press conferences, news coverage, and Texas Straight Talk updates!

"Terrorism is the war of the poor, while war is the terrorism of

It seems to me that you are

It seems to me that you are mixing up cleaning our mess (whether it's our own back yard or taking care of our planet) with global warming aka climate change. The two are independent of each other. The housekeeping of our domain is not dependent on the controversial "science" promoted by Al Gore called Global Warming which is directly tied into global profits for expanding global corporations. Doing a little research will reveal the international scientific community at large is protesting such contested artificial findings that are behind this push to Carbon Taxation of the world. I'd be more at ease if the money spent on producing the global "Chem Trails" and mucking up the air we breathe WAS spent on cleaning up the planet rather than blame humanity for existing. There must be a more humane way to reduce or re-distribute population than establishing a global gov't. to "fix" a false need. Creating global problems to have us pay for a global solution is a malignant science of power and greed perpetrated by political globalization of corporations.

as with so many things . . .

a society can never prosper without virtue.

The government has not done a good job 'caring' for the environment.

For one thing, there has been a lot of miseducation.

The idea that bigger is better is something that is very ingrained in our culture.

Dr. Paul can't instill virtue in human beings. It is virtuous to want one's children and grandchildren to be healthy, and our current society is not a healthy one.

The desire for health encompasses so many things beyond what is currently thought of as 'the environment'--

out of control chemicals have wrought unspeakable damage to human beings, as have out of control pharmaceuticals. Not to mention the damage from refined fossil fuels.

There is a better way, and it's not going to be found through more government--

so says the Christian tree-hugger whose father was a scientist.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Today we have Bogus Science,

that is science that swears that all the solutions come from more Government control and taxes.

Evolution and creation theories may both be right and wrong or a combination there of, or something entirely different.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

What is a Free Market??

You stated "It’s an issue he kind of sidesteps by saying “let the free market deal with it,” but I doubt the efficacy of this approach. Fundamental economics tells us it’s always in the best interests of a private company to externalize its costs as much as possible".

Sounds like you got your economics from some Keynesian offshoot (Fabian socialist style), so please read here, perhaps this will help. Notice that this is true: "Fundamental economics tells us it’s always in the best interests of a private company to externalize its costs as much as possible". Does corporate welfare equal "free market"? No. So something is wrong with their notions. The problem is that this is out of context and produces false results. This is a typical Fabian trickery.

The false context is that they then mis-define "free market". For one, they do not want you to have a true and accurate concept of this, they are trying to destroy freedom and the best way to do that is to destroy the concept of freedom.

All of the misconceptions that you reveal here root in misconceptions of what a free market is. I will not answer all of them. Get the concept then think your way past the propaganda on the other issues.

A true free market is not anarchy, it requires "rule of law, not rule by men", which is different from "regulation" (not the constitutional idea of regulation, but what the word now means - government co-opting individual, private choices.

A true free market necessarily upholds the right to hold non-criminally acquired property. This means one has the right to use, abuse, sell, destroy, dispose, give, whatever, that property. It means very specifically that no one else has the right to do anything with it, including dump on it.

In a true free market you would have legal remedy in the event that anyone else dumped garbage on your property.

So what about things which one cannot own, like air or the oceans? More specifically, while you have the right to do what you want with your own property, you do not have that right with property that you do not own. No one owns the air, but it is by nature a "common resource", meaning we all use it when we breathe, etc. Hence you do not have the right to maliciously dump airborne filth, and the solutions for this are best decided (per Constitution and by common sense, which is sometimes uncommon) at a local level, not at a federal or New World Order level.

"Global Warming" is not "settled science". If you believe this I recommend you stop believing the propaganda of the MSM. They are owned by, and work for people who want unlimited government and shackled individuals. There are plenty of refutations to the fabricated global warming nonsense, but they are not supported by the PTB. In fact one of the leading proponents of "global warming", alleged scientist (now "Science Czar") John Holdren, drew conclusions from the same data 30-40 years ago that we were entering a "new ice age".

They pick and choose whatever data they want, they manipulate it to their desired conclusion, they propose, no INSIST, that "the free market has failed" and the solution is unlimited government control over everything.

One of the main rules for manipulation of the pulbic is to USE FEAR TO ADVANCE GOVT CONTROL.

Back in the 1970's Holdren, along with the Erlichs, knew that because of the oil shortages (none due to a free market, ALL due to government intervention - the antithesis of free markets) that people were lowering their thermostats and feeling the fear of being without heat. So they propagandized the notion that without Global Government, WE WILL ALL FREEZE TO DEATH, shouted from every media (propaganda) outlet. This was due, according to the Erlich/Holdren 'theories', to human consumption of too much energy, leading to shortages and also producing smog that blocked they sun's rays, etc.

Various controls related to oil production were relaxed, prices dropped dramatically - yet we did not run out of oil, nor did we experience the global cooling that they predicted would happen as a result of increased energy usage.

The temperature of the Earth has been going up and down forever. The temperatue now is not at a max, and the max temp periods were experienced without human participation. This is contrary to the predictions of Holdren, so now he reverses his conclusions based upon the SAME factors, and proposes the SAME solution, despite the fact that the original problem (oil shortages)was solved by rescinding, not increasing, govt control. He claims "global warming" is due to the same factors as Global Cooling (the Comming Ice Age, they called it), and the proposed solution is the same: kill freedom by imposing unlimited government.

The most important thing here is to understand what a "Free Market" is. It is not anarchy, nor is it (from the same misdefiners) mercantilism (government favors to its selected business recipients - corporate welfare).

A free market is one without government regulations, edicts, controls, etc. This DOES NOT MEAN that there are no laws. It means that there MUST BE LAWS that prohibit murder, rape, robbery, theft, threat of the previous, fraud, etc, etc.

In a true free market there are no laws preventing acts between consenting private parties nor demanding acts between non-consenting private parties. A true free market, in order to maintain individual rights, must prohibit criminal acts, in which one party (private or government) coerces another.

How does the theory of evolution

compare with gravity?

Ron Paul is a man of science and a man of Christian faith. The two go hand in hand. Scientific method was developed within Christendom. It wasn't and could have never been developed in a heathen society.

Whoa!

While today's Islamic radicals seem to be anti-modernism there was once a golden age of Islam that lead the world in science and math. We use Arabic numerals. Algebra and trigonometry were developed by Islamic scholars. And to them of course, Christians are heathens. I don't think it's a good idea to put other religions down. Just make sure you're doing OK in your own.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Yep!

And they committed an act of Heresy by Christian standards everyday,They bathed!

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

quite favorably...

but not as evident to the average person. You drop a ball, it falls to the ground. There must be a force that causes it to drop, we named it "gravity".

Now visualize a place like the Gulf of Mexico(GoM), and realize how much sediment is washed out to sea from the Mississippi and other rivers. This sediment made up of clay and sand are deposited in layers out in the GoM. As layers pile up, the oldest layer is on the bottom. Stick with me...

As that sediment is being deposited, the critters living in the water at the time, like plankton, die and settle to the bottom along with the clay and sand.

So the critters in the lower layers are older than critters in the newly deposited layers, and all are preserved for eons.

This happens over hundreds of millions of years, so if you took samples from every layer, you can see the gradual change of the morphology of the critters.

If you're trained to identify the fossils and track their changes, then this "theory" of evolution is just as obviously valid as is the "theroy" of gravity. We see evdidence of both with our own eyes.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

It is true

that man has an impact on his environment. To deny this is idiocy. But how and to what extent is the debate. Paul is right that these people are wrong as to why we are experiencing climate change but Paul should understand that we are having an effect on our planet.

It is obvious that car exhaust, oil spills, mining, clear cutting and so on have a big impact on the environment but they do not necessarily have a significant impact on global warming. I think if anything is contributing to global warming it is the billions if not trillions of watts of microwave radar energy that is spewed into our atmosphere continually from military and civilian sources. Not to mention the intentional heating of our atmosphere by projects such as HAARP.

Paul is not perfect. He is just the best in the field.

http://www.eutimes.net/2011/0

I highly doubt you would call these scientists "anti-science"

http://www.eutimes.net/2011/09/cern-the-sun-causes-global-wa...

I have to return some videotapes...

I don't really know about all

I don't really know about all that.. but I do know something.. With their track record, if we let the government control our environment the earth will probably look like the face of Mars or Venus after 100 years. They are the LAST people I want in charge of the environment.

I think Paul's solution is elegant and simple. If you damage the land, air or rivers in a provable way you will be required to restore it to it's original state. No more government licenses to pollute, no more quotas of how much waste you can dump. Just simply you break it, you buy it.

Gravity is not a theory

Every time I see this "intellectual" argument, it drives me crazy. If you think gravity is a theory, then take your iPhone out and throw it up into the air as high as you can.

Gravity exists. You can prove that all day long. Theories of gravity attempt to explain how the phenomenon comes into being -- not to prove or disprove its existence.

Instead of comparing Darwinism to "the theory of gravity," maybe you should compare it to "the theory of life." Does modern life exist? Obviously, it does. Darwinism is one theory that attempts to explain how life, as it exists today, came into being. Darwinism doesn't say life is a "theory."

I'm not a creationist, but I think the creationists have a point that Darwinism fails to explain a lot about how life came into being. It fails to explain why there seems to be periods where lifeforms changed rapidly and other periods where they didn't. "Survival of the fittest" probably tells part of the story, but there are probably other factors at play. Maybe the universe is geared to create intelligent life through some set of as yet undiscovered properties.

Science is just a tool

Tools can be used for good and they can be used for EVIL.

Much of what passes for science is mere atheist dogma.

Atheists shroud themselves in the trappings of science, AND PASS DECREES that proclaim their hypotheticals and their pseudo-scientific theories AS PROVEN UNDENIABLE(and unassailable) TRUTHS.

Take evolution, since you brought it up.

Evolution is not a theory, it is merely a bunch of constantly changing hypotheses. Starting with Piltdown man, Lying pseudo-scientists have one after the other announced that they have discovered the missing link between humans and Apes.

For forty years Piltdown man WAS SETTLED SCIENCE. ALL of the scientists believed it was the missing link, only one problem, the human skull and Gorilla mandible were never put under ANY KIND OF SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY.

And so when finally it WAS looked at, it was proven without any real science needed to be the hoax of the century...a cheap and tawdry imitation.

So the search began anew. Over the next few decades many other missing links were proclaimed, only to be more phonies within that same year.

The famed LOUIS lEAKEY, discovered TWO missing links that were both quickly exposed as mere Ape fossils.

But that is just the tip of the voodooo science iceberg.

Life according to evolutionists evolved from what they call single-cell SIMPLE ORGANISMS. What they do not say is how those very 1st organisms managed to get a strand of DNA in them...

We are to believe that these 1st living creatures evolved from NON-LIFE, so how did they all get super computers built into them?

Too many unfathomables and constantly changing conclusions to put REAL faith in evolution.

EVOLUTION CHANGES EVERY DAY as REAL SCIENTISTS put the hypotheses through the rigors of the scientific method.

the cell is exactly where evolution eludes me.

at the microscopic level, it is a huge powerhouse computer with DNA and the strands that must be matched up PERFECTLY. I once read the odds of that happening were like huge.. so that's the reason evolution has to take billions of years..to make the chances of them lining up seem possible. There are just too many "ifs" for me".Seems like a real leap of "faith" to believe it. Evolutionists always look at the bigger picture ie: the fossil record. I say convince me at the cellular level, without the huge "chance" issue. then maybe I will come on board. But I don't see that happening.

________________________________
the lesser of two evils is still evil

So are we voting on "Scientist in Chief"?

If someone does not agree with his beliefs on Evolution or Global Warming, that they need to be reminded that we are voting on "Commander in Chief" not "Scientist in Chief"...or "Debater in Chief" for that matter.

The question I would ask them is "How does this make him less qualified to be the President?"

Ron Paul's complete and flawless knowledge of our Foreign Policy, Monetary Policy and Civil Liberty Protections ARE the prerequisites for "Commander in Chief" and as such has my vote even if my views on evolution or global warming differed.

wierd science

My how college must have changed since I got my Computer science degree...

Now they teach you what to think instead of how to think?

And I don't like to call people liars, especially when they just seem naive, but then, I SAY TO MYSELF, this guy is OBVIOUSLY no Ron Paul supporter, so if the shoe fits...

Ron Paul is NOT anti-science but...

PRO LOGIC... Just because there is a guy with a fancy degree telling you something does NOT make it true. Look at it from the position of their motives. A scientist IS like a politician and they essentially get lobbied. They as for money from certain groups and those groups ask for something in return. That something is PROOF of their hypothesis or view point. The thing to remember is that:

ALL SCIENTISTS ARE MEN
AND ALL MEN ARE FALLIBLE

THEREFORE ALL SCIENCE IS FALLIBLE!

Political, financial, hypocritically ethical. There is always a motive.

Do the research yourself, come to a conclusion yourself. The only thing other peoples opinions are good for is to introduce an alternative view point!

Thanks for the very interesting debate

After reading all the comments here I would like to thank everyone who commented for a very enlightening debate. I just passed the 4 year mark and never tire of the quality and intellectual abilities of the people here at the DP. With people like you supporting Ron Paul he has already won.

I Second That!

When I originally posted this, I had braced myself for the slough of rants and insults that usually follow my posts on other websites. It's been very refreshing to have nothing but thoughtful, respectful responses. I guess Ron Paul attracts a different sort of crowd!

There is a long list

of scientists that question the gore-ish conclusions about global warming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the...
As far as the theory of evolution goes...well, there IS a reason that they call it the "theory of evolution." Although well accepted, it IS still a theory. There are many of these, including, notably, the Big Bang Theory. There are many different theories to explain the phenomenon of gravity, none of which have been proven. Illustrating that something works, such as evolution, does not prove it. Until it is proven, it still remains a theory.

I'm afraid you do not understand

what the difference is between the common use of the word 'theory' and the scientific use of the word 'theory'.

http://thinking-critically.com/2010/07/08/theory-scientific-...

Please learn the difference.

We can only be kept in the cages we do not see. - Stefan Molyneux

You are a function of what the whole universe is doing in the same way that a wave is a function of what the whole ocean is doing. - Alan Watts

...

This article cites Wikipedia which is an absolute no-no in any scientific or scholarly work. Why would we use a source that scientists refuse to use in order to explain any aspect of science?

Theory: A hypothesis becomes theory by becoming “widely” accepted because of testing. It is a proposed explanation for how or why something happens and generally cannot be proven.

http://www.sciencedictionary.org/chemistry-term-details/Theory

Theory: Compare with hypothesis .Theories are well-established explanations for experimental data. To become established, the theory must experimentally tested by many different investigators. Theories usually can not be proven; a single contrary experiment can disprove a theory.

http://www.science-dictionary.org/theory

I could go on, I decided not to cite the science textbooks I have from school for brevity. The point is, a theory is not proven and not verifiable, by definition. In order to test its merits you must try to invalidate it. In fact, the article you link makes note of that when referencing Poppler. As soon as we start treating theories as verifiable facts we prove our own arrogance and willful ignorance. Poppler goes on to say,

"Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status."

Sounds like anthropomorphic global warming to me.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

my "work" on DP is neither

scholarly or scientific. lol

Im afraid I don't see your point. Criticizing me, the article. please advise.

note: i picked the first article i googled to give a better view to my fellow ron paul compatriots about the use or misuse of the word 'theory'. my bad, i didnt know it cited wikipedia. shame on me.

I've only commented on evolution, not global warming.

We can only be kept in the cages we do not see. - Stefan Molyneux

You are a function of what the whole universe is doing in the same way that a wave is a function of what the whole ocean is doing. - Alan Watts

if you don't like RP, then just vote for one of the pscyopaths

good grief :-(

If you did not make the effort to understand his question...

... then why bother answering.

He is looking for help, not being obstinate.

The earth has 2 climate cycles--ice ages and interglacials

We are in an interglacial period. An ice age is next. In our lives, probably not. Our fault? Absolutely not. Man-made climate change is a hoax. Reality is counter-programming. Wake up.

That darned " anti - science " Ron Paul

I think it's sort of intellectually lazy to come to the conclusion that someone's anti-science based on a few video clips. I find that most people who make the "anti-science" charge have little to no understanding of science, and possess (at best) a tentative grasp on the theory's they so readily appeal to.

A few quick words on man-made global warming/carbon emissions.

- The idea that carbon dioxide produced by industry will cause abrupt, devasting, run-away climate change in the near future is bunk. Carbon dioxide does not, and never has driven climite on planet Earth. The Sun is, and always has been the main driver of climite on this. The Sun goes through it's own cycles of activity and inactivity which is the main force behind climite change. The fourth grade ( Al Gore ) depiction of the sun as a friendly light bulb face that casts a consistant amount of radiation on the earth is not even worth adressing here.

- If you remember from science class, CO2 is considered to be a trace gas in our atmosphere. That's because it accounts for a fraction of a percent of our total atmosphere. As far as AGW goes, human's contribute to about 3 percent of total CO2 emmisions. This simply cannot account for disasterous climate change. It's important that you understand that it is THIS phony dooms day scenario that Ron Paul is calling a hoax, and not simply the idea of climate change.

- Guess what? CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. The heat coefficent of CO2 is lower than both Oxygen and Nitrogen, and the biggest sink of infrared heat in our atmosphere is not CO2 - but in fact water vapor.

- Climate change is a useless catch-all term, and red flags should go up when ever you hear someone use it. The climate is always changing ( go outside if you don't believe me ) on a macro scale, we are in an interglacial period between two ice ages. There are smaller cycles too, we are currently in the peak of one of these cycles. Things will only get cooler from here on out. It's interesting to note that our current warming trend began BEFORE the industrial revolution, so blaming it on human activity is a bit of a stretch, frankly.

- I'm going to assume that you understand the concept of a military industrial complex. If this is clear to you, then why are you so reluctant to see that the same exact phenomenon exists when it comes to scientific research funding? I know that we all like to think of scientists as totally objective seekers of truth but the fact is they get most of their funding either directly from the government or from government-sponsered universities. It's not a huge leap of logic to then assume they will pander to their political piggy bank in order to get what they want. The scientists get their money, and the politicians get their draconian legislation. It's a win-win, except for you and me of course.

Ok now let's talk about evolution. First I think we should establish what exactly it is we mean by evolution. This is important since most people are actually talking about different things when they argue, which can lead to going around in circles for hours.

I've broken it down into 3 definitions.

- Life on earth changes over time due to genetic/ enviromental influences (genetic drift, natural selection, etc.)

This is the idea that most of us are familiar with, and I think it's fair to say that the majority of America accepts it as being true. I'm going to guess that Ron Paul also accepts this view seing as how he's a medical doctor and everything. However, when someone questions any other aspect of evolution it's always this version that serves as the straw man. This is intentend to make a skeptic feel like a rube, and "anti-science". This type of behavior is often observed in undergrad students who ( ironically ) are pursueing a liberal arts degree.

- Common descent/Universal ancestry.

Here's another one we can thank Darwin for. Most of the evidence for this is came from obervations on a micro scale ( All dogs descending from the wolf for example ). In Darwin's case it was something to do with Galapagos Finches if I remember correctly. With the advent of biochemistry ( a field of science that wasn't around in Darwin's day ) this idea saw a resurgence and scientists posited that since all life is formed essentially the same way ( DNA, RNA, Proteins ) then all life must have in fact come from a common ancestor. This is fine as a theory but it is far from bulletproof, since one of the basic tennents of logic is that correllation does not imply causation. I don't think anyone has a problem common descent per se, except that it's often regarded as an irrefutable fact. Anyone who is familiar with science knows that for a hypothesis to even be considered fact it needs to be tested and then repeated. This is simply not possible in this case ( unless you had a time machine of course ). Again, to imply that if someone is skeptical about this explaination then they are " anti-science " is absurd since science doesn't have anything except educated guesses when it comes to this topic.

- Origin of life/Abiogenesis

Technically this has nothing to do with evolution but this is where the conversation always ends up. Evolutionary biologists have taken stabs at this in the past and come up with results ( that even they admit ) are completely unsatisfactory. In response they've put forward with the hilariously science fiction-esque idea of pan spermia which hypothesizes that earth was seeded with primitive micro organizims via asteroids ( which Bruce Willis nuked in Armageddon ) in the remote past. This explaination is laugable, and no more plausible than life being created by a bearded Zues-like man in the sky ( Sorry bible-believers don't flame me!). Also it doesn't adress the problem, it just allows scientists to bury their collective heads in the sand and ignore it. Where did those microbes on the asteroids come from? Doesn't matter...they're ALIENS!

Hopefully I've given you some insight into what being "anti-science" actually means, and why it might be a good thing ( and pro-science ). I think it's also important to realize that it shouldn't even matter what Ron Paul thinks. He doesn't want tell me what to think, and that's good enough. When someone pulls the "Ron Paul is anti-science" card it generally means they have missed the entire point of what he's been talking about, or they didn't even bother to find out what he actually stands for. In other words you've already won the arguement.

- Liberty and Prosperity -