Bill, I have not read Silent Spring. I was an adult when the book was published, and there was enough publicity surrounding it to get a good idea of what was in it. I was a supporter at the time, and I thought that banning DDT was a good idea.
Recent authors reviewing Silent Spring have said that some of her conclusions were based on bad science. There have also been some unintended consequences, such as millions of deaths from malaria the could have been prevented by DDT.
I haven't read these books either.

 

Reading books on D.D.T. back in the 50" and 60's give a good reference of the

damage that occurred before banning and todays environment. I interviewed

farmers 10 years ago , most had no problem with D.D.T. coming back.

The farmers had a one man operation with tractors could do hundreds of acres

in a day with no trouble. They would divide there fields into three or four sections.

The section they were plowing used pesticides ,the other sections were let go

because the government were paying them not to grow. So when they got back to

working that land again they would ask the government to give them money to bring

the land back so they could grow again. My problem is that the insects and disease

were allowed to fester while it lay unused. Bringing the land up to par with new

regulations cost a lot more and uses a lot chemicals. The government and farmers

don't care about the cost , complain about what it take to make the land useable

each season. The farmers would take D.D.T. back in a heartbeat. If you don't

understand a little about truck farming, this post won't mean much to you.

back so it could produce

 

Here are the first five results from googling "famous scientific errors."

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

http://science.discovery.com/strange-science/10-science-mistakes.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2001/oct/23/research.highereducation

http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featblunders

http://www.howstuffworks.com/innovation/science-questions/embarrassing-science-moments-quiz.htm

Science and scientists can be, and often are, wrong. We snicker at the foolishness of some past errors, and pat ourselves on the back for being so much more advanced than they were, and tell ourselves that we couldn't make such blatant errors. And I could be wrong, but I am convinced that future scientists will snicker at many of our 21st century theories at the same time they are making their own set of ignorant claims.

And yeah, I said I would be quiet on this topic, but I changed my mind.

There is no religion that is any more dogmatic in its beliefs than science.

 

Before picture comparison and after we have Ice cores that tell the history of ice.

Just simple stuff....believe or not.

 

Branson, the airplane mogul has used his own money to make advances....he

don't have please universities for grants and beg and lie ,do bad reports. He

has gone to space on his own terms picking up prizes along the way.

 

The drones that the local police is using a has briggs and Stratton motor that holds

about a gal of gas. They sound just like a lawn mower with a camera so don't expect

a lot of action yet. The permission they have has more power than the drone.

 

Loosie ...

Did the farmer call the sections? A section of land to me is a square mile. I know the CRP program is the government paying the farmers to let some land stand idle. CRP ... Conservation Restoration Program.

 

Actually, every single religion is more dogmatic than science. The proof of this is simple: take a look at how many scientific theories have been corrected. Every single false scientific theory shown was subsequently correct by a scientist studying the claim. By contrast, religious theories are never corrected. People are fighting over religious claims that are well over 2,000 years old! And I personally know otherwise intelligent people who still think the earth is 6,000 years old.

Some thing that jump right out about those so-called mistakes by science, aside from what I've already stated about all having been corrected. You have to go way back for most of the scientific fallacies. We're talking about 17th century and further back for most of them. Theories were proposed without the understanding we have today concerning the scientific disciplines. Also, many of the claims were neither scientific nor were proposed by scientists. For example, the age of the earth being only 6,000 years old came from the bible, not scientific thought. Another example, that rain followed plowed earth was a wide spread myth, not the science of it's time. Further, although some stalwarts of science got some things wrong, as Ptolemy's theory that the earth was the center of the universe, they often got much more right. Ptolemy, for example, made great strides in mathematics, optics, astronomy and music. His successes far overshadows his failures. And lastly, though some of the failed theories were proposed by scientists, those theories were never accepted by the larger scientific community. Cold fusion is one example.

Now that we've examined what (supposed) science got wrong let's look at that science got right. Keep in mind, in their days, these theories, now proven correct, had their sworn distracters.

1) Laws of motion
2) Electro-magnetics
3) atominc energy
4) semiconductor properties
5) photo lithography
6) the DNA
7) radioactive dating
8) wireless transmission
9) sterilization/disinfection/pasteurization
10) quantum mechanics
11) space travel
12) air travel
13) electro-chemistry
14) antigenic inoculation
15) electronic miniaturization
16) metallurgy/advance alloys
17) super computing
18) mechanization/automation
19) spectrographic analysis
20) electricity from sunlight

And this is just off the top of my head. No google required.

 

@ Joe Jester , Its a program I know ,but its a waste of money and lets more

insects take over while land is not being used. Its a cycle I know that and the

D.D.T. mind set is still there for a easy catch up. Also diesel fuel is a short cut.

As long as they don't get caught, any thing goes. These farmers didn't mind

talking about regulations ,like digging holes to bury trash ,the gov. put a stop

of doing that. They said waste management picks up there trash now. Knowing

waste management ,they will keep the farmers honest ,no trash put out..

inspection. Its been awhile since I opened my D.D.T. book ,they may have renamed

it in other countries.

 

@ Brownout, The liberal arts goes back to the 14th or 15th century.

 

And lastly, though some of the failed theories were proposed by scientists, those theories were never accepted by the larger scientific community.

What percentage equates to the "larger scientific community"?

My problem is there could be a self-serving prophecy for certain results. Like the email passing the word that it would be ok to exclude data that doesn't support a premise.

Don't forget most of these scientists get government money and if their results don't fit within their sponsor's agenda, the funding could dry up. I know there is an agency distributing the money, but the congress critter could defund the agency to where they must re-prioritize their spending.

Why did the "global warming" crowd change the name to "climate change"? Hell yeah I believe in climate change, when I was on the last island in the Aleutian Chain, Attu Island, if I didn't like the weather, all I had to do was wait a few minutes and it would change.

The human record on this is incomplete at best.

As far as the 6000 year old earth comment, no one has ever correlated what we defined as time to what was defined as time when the documents were written. Assuming the definition was the same is a nth magnitude aw $hit.

Who knows, maybe this forum is foolish for not allowing "over unity". I'm not a "true believer" in over unity, but based on your comments we could be wrong.

 

What percentage equates to the "larger scientific community"?

Pretty much the whole community in this case.

Don't forget most of these scientists get government money and if their results don't fit within their sponsor's agenda, the funding could dry up

I won't forget that the counter to science gets alot more money from people with a vested interest in snuffing out the science. Either way, you're making an extraordinary claim of widespread fraud among the scientific community without extraordinary evidence. Not a position I'm willing to accept.

Who knows, maybe this forum is foolish for not allowing "over unity". I'm not a "true believer" in over unity, but based on your comments we could be wrong.

If ever anyone here gave me a WTF???? moment, you just did.

 

If you want to list all the achievements of science, don't forget the lever, the wheel, fire, counting, hammers, and nails, bubble gum, insecticides, google, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.

The point is not what "science" has done correctly; the point is that no one knows what he doesn't know...not even "scientists." Therefore, there is always the possibility that any scientific theory may be proven to be incorrect to the point of being laughable by some future discovery.

Like us mere mortals, scientists and engineers need to put their egos on hold, and recognize that they have been wrong about some things in the past, are wrong about some things in the present, and will be wrong about some things in the future.

 

Well, if we are to consider what they have been wrong about in the past, then it is just as reasonable to consider what they have been right about in the past. Also, how science has corrected what was wrong. Why should we only consider 1/2 of the story. Fact is, the record is very much in favor of science. But scientists are also well aware that they might not be right, and if we are to consider actual scientific writings, there is most always sources of possible error in the final analysis. But once the evidence has been examined, then conclusion are proposed, and the evidence is retained as support for those conclusions.

When science is wrong, it's replace by better science. Any who is in possession of better science should share it.

 

And we are willing to play Russian roulette with the human race.

 

I won't forget that the counter to science gets alot more money from people with a vested interest in snuffing out the science. Either way, you're making an extraordinary claim of widespread fraud among the scientific community without extraordinary evidence. Not a position I'm willing to accept.

And yet you proposed the opponents get a lot more money without the benefit of extraordinary evidence.

Why did the "global warming" crowd suggest "cherry picking" the data per an email stating to discount some information? Or should we just believe the damage control by that crowd.

Your "pretty much everyone" lacks context.

I'm glad you had a WTF moment. I spoke to the fallibility of mankind. That fallibility includes the creationism and big bang theorists. I've never seen, nor ever will, see the correlated time scales between big bang and creationism. I've seen the differences expressed in our terms, so we think of them based on our common standards. I don't think humans can fathom the time lines being equal with the story being told in the manner it's being told over the past few thousands of years.

As measurements improve, so does our knowledge. The second, as defined by international convention, certainly is touted as an improvement. However, there are various time scales in use, from UT0 through UTC. UTC get's leap second adjustments when UTC varies too far. So, even today, time is messy. "Good enough" must be the operative words. Good enough to accomplish the tasking's.

 

And yet you proposed the opponents get a lot more money without the benefit of extraordinary evidence.

But I didn not propose widespread fraud. If the scientists were after the money, the oil has alot more to throw around.

Why did the "global warming" crowd suggest "cherry picking" the data per an email stating to discount some information? Or should we just believe the damage control by that crowd.

Don't know what you would be refering to, unless it's the hacked e-mails. Hard to believe people who break into secure compuers and steal information.

I'm glad you had a WTF moment.

Then confusion must have been your propose. Congratulations, you succedded.

 

Don't know what you would be refering to, unless it's the hacked e-mails. Hard to believe people who break into secure compuers and steal information.

Nice excuse. I'm sure the scientists in questioned produced their originals to defend themselves.

Not really. Nobody told the earth how long it should take to revolve.

And no one told MAN to figure out a suitable measurement for that revolution. That was man's curiosity, not the earth's.

 

I thought it took exactly one day to rotate and one year to revolve around the sun!

 

Nice excuse. I'm sure the scientists in questioned produced their originals to defend themselves.

Excuse for what? Not believing fraduently obtained data? No excuse needed for that.