Forums & Pictures
Surveys & Archive
1. Copy-n-paste what your question is about from the Member's forum, someones Yes/No forum, or any Member Q&A Dialogue into Question & Answer Dialogue forum; then hit New Topic button and paste your copy in the New Topic box.
2. Put members nicl-(x) number, e.g. nicl-1 or Yes/No persons name in Subject rectangle followed by the subject of question. For a long question, add more at top of Topic box.
3. Remember you take turns, checking an "I agree" or a "this is my last response" ends your part in the dialogue, and the other person gets the last word.
4. Finally, read and reread the Q&A procedures. They are meant to treat both sides of a Dialogue impartially.
Finally, to open another popup, close the old one.
The Principles Governing A Scientist's Behavior
Joined: Dec 31, 1969
|Post subject: The Principles Governing A Scientist's Behavior
Posted: Fri May 29, 2015 5:29 am
revised 11-25-16 Rearranged order and added the fifth principle.
7-22-17 Edit for clarity on "using whats wrong with your predictions to improve them."
7-18-17 Minor editing for clarity. A mis-spelling etc.
2-03-18 Added a Preamble
2-05-18 edited Preamble by adding the conclusion, "or worse, and unfortunately more frequently, bought and paid for."
2-25-18 Changed above phrase to read "or worse, and unfortunately, all too often, they show they are bought and paid for."
A scientist is on a Public voyage of discovery. Once you can frame a question we can't answer yet, then you step across the boundary into the vast unknown. You only have your purpose, to find the common objective causal link that answers the question, and explains its implications. These kind of answers are called Natural Laws.
When you start, you don't know what the answer is, you just know there is an answer. This purpose means you must use "self admitted incorrect falsifiable predictions", so yourself and others can test your predictions.
In the beginning, you will almost always be 'wrong' so graciously and thankfully admit it, improve your hypothesis, and persist until you figure it out.
Instead now we treat science and public discourse as a gladiatorial contest. Many people and most Phds act as though their version of reality must be true and so they don't have to answer anyone else's objective disagreements. Instead they ignore or call you names when pushed. This behavior means we are not an honest truth seeking society.
By my deeds I have shown that I use "publicly admitted wrong predictions" to make fundamental scientific discoveries. So when you claim to be a truth seeker, and that is what a real scientist is, then there is only one way to prove you actually seek the public truth. Use the N1CL!
Anyone who claims to be a scientist and won't answer public challenges from anyone is not a real scientist, instead they show they are afraid to stand up for the public truth, or worse, and unfortunately, all too often, they show they are bought and paid for.
Below Are The Five Principles
Purpose defines methods. The advance of Science, above all, rests on publicly resolving with "objective" evidence, disagreements about how our universe causally works. Therefore these operating principles must regulate a scientists behavior.
"Objective" = we all can potentially see or measure the same data, i.e. it takes at least two of us to create an 'objective' fact. e.g. Scientific Laws must meet an even higher standard. They can be potentially verified by any honest, competent observer. e.g. c, the speed of light in a vacuum always = mcc. You must be a honest eyewitness to create scientific facts.
First, Once you find a question we can not explain causally, you must do predictions organized by cause and effect. The purpose of Science is to predict how our universe works down to its most basic level using "objective measures of cause and effect" we all can see used.
So after you have enough data to take a guess(a hypothesis), then go measure what sticks: = Adjust your prediction by admitting whats wrong with your hypothesis, = using the difference between what measurements you predicted and what you actually measured to improve the hypothesis; then rinse and repeat until you get it right. Perfect means we will never run out of work.
Amazing how many Phds think not admitting when they are wrong is allowed. They do this by "ignoring or adjusting" contradictory data because it contradicts the theoretical dogma they were indoctrinated with(an old story), or much worse, offends who writes their paychecks(an older story).
Second, Amazing how many people, especially many scientists, make this mistake, a cause always occurs before an effect, an effect after its cause(s). e.g. Every ice core sample from Greenland and Antarctica(about 100) going back 800,000 years shows that temperatures rise at least 800 years before CO2 levels start rising and CO2 levels start falling 800 plus years after temperature levels start falling. Ergo, CO2 is an effect, not a cause, just as the Beer-Lambert-Bouguer Lawpredicts. CO2 contribution to global warming is a constant. It is an infrared sponge of very limited capacity.
The Beer-Lambert-Bouguer Law predicts that in any given volume of gas or chemical, at some parts per million the absorption spectrum of the gas or chemical will absorb 50% of the radiation passing through the given volume. Double the ppm you capture 75%, double again 87.5%,
or you can double the distance and get the same effect. Ergo, any combination of distance doubles and ppm doubles that add up to six and you can't absorb any more. For CO2 its 30 ppm and less than a cubic meter distance, thus at 100 ppm or less it can't absorb any more infrared in our atmosphere.
Why CO2 stops absorbing infrared below 400 ppm.
Third, your data, the measurements are sacrosanct.No Fudging. Lying about the data is the only mortal scientific sin. We all make mistakes and measurements are easier to screw up than most people realize, especially statistics, so when you discover a mistake, admit it asap.
Four, since science is for all of us, you must Give Credit to Those Who Discover First and Publish First, while all involved in publishing and challenging must courteously answer anyone's public disagreement with your facts and reasoning. Credit and courtesy go together.
Five, Last but not least, Real scientists challenge publicly false and incorrect scientific assertions by anyone. I am not a climate warming denier, I am a scientist, and those who push CO2 caused global warming are both factually and theoretically WRONG! Their refusal to answer objections is scientifically dishonest, while going back and deliberately changing original temperature measurements makes them NOT scientists, but propagandists, and in the case of using public monies to falsify data, criminals.
Are any of you who say CO2 causes global warming, willing to answer my charges in public on the N1CL? Challenge me on the record. Let's see whose data and theory backing up the data wins.
Yes we can do real science together, it starts with admitting when you are wrong in public after you have published. Doing that is the essence of being a dogooder = a scientist. Doing good absolutely requires we get our facts and reasoning straight, especially when we are dealing with the lives of everyone on Earth.
Until we actually publicly and expeditiously resolve my prediction that CO2 can not cause global warming as a greenhouse gas, we can not call ourselves an honest society that actually does real science.
"I swear to speak honestly and seek the truth when I use the No 1st Cost List public record."
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forums Last posts
Last 10 Forum Messages
This URL is for those of you who deny the E-Ts existence.
Disclosure Project has 500 govt witnesses who swore before Congress to their direct E-T contacts.
This climate url speaks to how corrupt much of our scientific establishment has become.
Why rising CO2 levels Can NOT cause global warming.
Cimate Fraud Whistleblower Rewards Program
Why is handling the massive scientific disagreement with the AGW(Anthropogenic Global Warming = (man caused) proponents crucial to disconnecting Earth's Anti-Matter debt?
Our leaders and thus most of you will not seek the truth about our real place in the universe. Why is explained by ignorance and self service. Until our society openly deals with this easy to resolve scientific disagreement, I must conclude we will not act to prevent Earth from being vaporized.
These links deal directly with How to Prevent our Sun from exploding.
How do we prevent our Sun from exploding July 16, 2024?
9-21-12 How to find the 2 conjunction asteroids in the "Missing Earth" crop circle?
This math is required.
How to use a circle to relate 'e' to Phi.
Confirming objective reports.
National UFO Reporting Center
Crop Circle Connector
2-4-2017 Needed A-M debt Disconnection Tools, Measurements & Must Do's
HOW can we get these tests DONE?
The Latest Changes Made To Site
We have received8353215
page views since
April 27, 2005