does any one believe that scientists are to blame for lack of answers to some quizes? they dont give room 4 im
105681
Wow, I am totally at a loss to understand what you are asking. \n\nGlobal warming is not due to carbon dioxide? \n\nYou can easily calculate how much warmer the earth is because of the presence of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in its atmosphere, compared to a black body at 1 AU from the sun (about 33 degrees C). Without global warming, mainly due to carbon dioxide and water vapor in the air, the earth would be MUCH colder. \n\nAnd you are correct that carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas. There are many more. Such as water vapor and CFCs and HFCs and nitrous oxide and methane and so on. But CO2 does contribute, a lot. \n\nWe can't see light in a vacuum? Well I guess if I passed light through a vacuum I would not see it until it bounced off something. But if I was in the vacuum and the light went into my eye, then I would see it. I just don't understand your statement. \n\nAnd I have no idea what those two statements have to do with the first question about scientists and quizzes.
1144809
Yes, there a few gems stashed in amongst the rubbish on this forum.  It takes researching the profiles of people who give intelligent answers.  People who give good answers usually ask great questions.  Sometimes we have to put up with a lot of irritating nonsense to get through to the good stuff.  I suggest keep a list of people who ask good questions/give good answers and go to their profiles to answer theirs.  Who cares about points.  Let the others wear each other out.
231013
running out of answers
499235
I guess because those of us who actually do know anything about science and biology are too thin on the ground to asnwer every question. If you ask it again i will do my upmost to answer it (can e-mail me the question through my homepage)
967308
Must not be an awesome site if they don't have the answers.
991529
I agree. I often give complete answers, with lots of research to back them up, and am only rewarded with two points. It can be pretty frustrating.
199058
Astronomers are always right except some theories. Because they are doing more than research for this every minute. And i believe that they are right about the black holes.\nBut to make sure that thing they need more research on this.
446463
haha sounds like someone didn't do their homework...\n\n what do you think they are and we'll tell you if you're correct?
1036384
most chift not u some region science you not  under stand \n\nWhy ask  - after reading your other questions it is obvious that you are a nut case & just want to waste peoples time - go somewhere else
960603
Here are three of the seven listed on a website with their reasons.\n\n\n (7) I am entitled to my opinion (used to support the truth of the opinion).\n\n    A quite common outcome in arguments between science and pseudoscience is when the person holding the failing position resorts to saying “…well, that is my view and I am entitled to my opinion.” This is often recruited in support of the argument being made, thus implying that ones entitlement is somehow important for the truth of the argument itself. Indeed they are entitled to their opinion, but their entitlements were never in question. We are all entitled to our opinions – but this has no consequence for the scientific truth of them and does not establish or justify the validity of them. So the problem here arises when one recruits the mere ‘entitlement’ (and no evidence) to a view, as some form of evidential support for the truth of the view. It is often used as a final defence mechanism when faced with quite strong counter-arguments and evidence.\n\n    The crucial point with this error in argumentation is that your individual entitlement to hold a view is no indication at all as to its validity or truth – indeed, it is completely irrelevant (a form of the non-sequitur fallacy). When having a scientific debate, discussing evidence and theory, it makes no sense to recruit your human rights and ‘entitlements’ in defence of any view. It shifts the focus from one of science, evidence, and reason to one of human rights (see Whyte, 2005). This is an irrelevant and unhelpful tangent. You are of course entitled to hold any view you please, but it becomes a fallacy of reason to recruit that mere entitlement as some form of evidence in support of the truth of that view.\n\n    Recruiting the ‘I’m entitled to my opinion’ stance in any debate is functionally equivalent to saying, ‘I am entitled to be wrong!’ Entitlements do not establish truth. Human entitlements and rights are irrelevant to a scientific debate based on facts, evidence and reason. A scientist may be entitled to his / her opinion of the facts, but their entitlements do not make them correct, their data and evidence makes them correct. A scientist is entitled to believe that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius, but the entitlement to that view does not make the scientist correct – the facts gained from scientific study provide evidence – which actually exists independent of anyone’s view of it. Therefore, it is sound reasoning, logic, and the recruitment of supportive empirical evidence of quality that makes an argument more likely to be correct.\n\n\n6) Argumentum Ad-hominem: Shoot the messenger fallacy.\n\n    This is a common logical fallacy. Argumentum ad hominem basically means that the argument becomes directed towards the individual as opposed towards the crucial issues being discussed. It is succinctly described as, attack the messenger not the message (hence – shoot the messenger). It is often seen in both politics and pseudoscience. Its aim is to undermine the position of ones opponent, by undermining the opponent personally (in a manner that is actually completely irrelevant to the debate). The hope here is that if one can discredit the individual, this by default, discredits his / her argument. It does not. The fallacy here relates to the irrelevance of the attack. It is not viable to argue against a position and then justify that argument by criticising the individual who holds it. Arguing that the proposals from the Educational minister are unlikely to work because he / she have no children of their own is hardly convincing. Furthermore, saying that Einstein or Darwin were selfish men does nothing to discredit the theories of Relativity and Evolution. They may have been the most selfish or the most unselfish of men, but this is an irrelevance as to the ‘truth’ of their scientific claims. Similarly, a cognitive neuroscientific account of strange expe
730129
Yes of course there is a similarity. Many seemingly unanswearable questions (long ago it was questions about the planets, now it's questions about where we come from) were attributed to God or to spiritual explanations. Now even as we begin to answer many of these questions with science and with technology or discoveries not previously avalible, some people still can't seem to let go of their religious explanations. Maybe it's the fear that eventually all of our questions can be answered without god in the equation.
695482
Good luck with that. The odds of figuring out an answer with the information provided is a big fat ZERO. \n.
352815
This type of 'mental gibberish' is very indicative of the fundamental problems in the academic world of education.  Better to ask 'hard' questions that require real research, real thinking, and real opportunity for rational critiquing.  This type of question is sadly pathetic. It explains why American school children can't think, can't perform basic math, and are totally afraid of anything labeled 'science'.  But... they sure 'feel good about themselves' and 'their opinions'!
941547
I believe it was A why are you asking homework questions?\nI know for sure D is not the answer.
588257
Yes, it is frustrating.  All you can do is ignore the quantity and look for the quality answers.  those are the ones that matter anyway.
535302
It's not all their fault.  Public education in some parts of the world is so bad (for various reasons) that many high-school graduates can barely read well enough to get into college and many others need remedial writing courses in their first year.  And things are even worse in the sciences.\n\nHaving said that, it is everyone's responsibility to get the facts, so to the extent that the creationists / IDiots refuse to do that, then I have to agree (alas) that they are morons.
607412
I don't see a question here either.  But I think I understand what you're saying.  However, you did get a lot of people who answered your last question.\n\nI usually get the run around and no real answers when I ask creationists questions as well (just click on my icon to see/answer them).