[Parallax]

Yep, time to get rid of science!

No, DWB, my only point was that just because there was a study and a conclusion was drawn doesn't necessarily mean we actually know any more than we did before the study.

[shooz]

Still waiting on an answer.
What do you concider conservative science?

[Nesster]

Yeah, right, science is just a glorified popularity poll. The fact that scientific theories may be disproved, and new ones take their place to better map to evidence, simply shows that all science is wrong all the time. Oh, and our talking to each other on the internet has nothing to do with scientific discovery, as scientific discovery's all bs, finding what is paid for, and faked in order to win Nobel prizes. No, us talking to each other on the internet is there because God created Capitalism, as part of the Intelligent Design of the Internet.

[shooz]

Still no response.
I guess that's what a conservative education does for you.

[Green_Manelishi]

Yeah, right, science is just a glorified popularity poll. The fact that scientific theories may be disproved, and new ones take their place to better map to evidence, simply shows that all science is wrong all the time. Oh, and our talking to each other on the internet has nothing to do with scientific discovery, as scientific discovery's all bs, finding what is paid for, and faked in order to win Nobel prizes. No, us talking to each other on the internet is there because God created Capitalism, as part of the Intelligent Design of the Internet.

Another brilliantly constructed diatribe against anyone who rejects the science fiction of evolution.

[Parallax]

Green_Manelishi, I just noticed the Islay link in your sig line. I'll have to check that out when I get time. I haven't met an Isaly malt yet that I didn't like.

[wildman]

I would be the first to admit that there is now has been in the past and will be in the future bad and bogus "science". And most of this bad "science" has been found out and proven to be wrong by science it's self.

We know this to be true because the claims of science are subject to verification, empirical study and factual accuracy. If we act on this bad science the predicted results just will not happen. In other words the claims of science must sooner or later conform to the reality of verifiable well understood natural laws. This is because the claims of science are strictly limited to the perceptible reality of common ordinary human experience.

But how could bad or bogus religion be ever proven or dis-proven? What standards of truth or accuracy or empirical evidence can be applied to a domain that is by definition beyond ordinary human understanding and logic?

Of course there are charlatans in science and, of course, such people have never been found among people faith.

Any fool can see that the history of religious belief has been a history of perfect morality and truth without exception.

[Nesster]

Oh, I'm just diatribing against arguments and theories that conveniently support one's political or religious beliefs, while just as conveniently partakes of the fruits of what one's against.

People who do science are people, and thus are apt to suffer the same things people who do religion or work in some other field. So, we have our moments of dreaming, of grandiosity and ambition, and we construct human organizations that all behave like human organizations.

Just as one shouldn't reject organized religion due to people who run the organizations, one shouldn't reject organized science... even if there are atheist scientists.

---------- Post added 03-08-2010 at 06:08 PM ----------

... This is because the claims of science are strictly limited to the perceptible reality of common ordinary human experience.

But how could bad or bogus religion be ever proven or dis-proven? What standards of truth or accuracy or empirical evidence can be applied to a domain that is by definition beyond ordinary human understanding and logic?

Actually, being a mystic, and having read fairly widely in this area, I would suggest that what's at the base of organized religions is in fact common ordinary human experience. Mystical experiences are repeatable and consistent, person to person, across time.

It's the old division of labor we've inherited in the West, by which the Church agreed to stop burning scientists, that causes us to think religion is something different. Or that modern science is.

How could a bad or bogus religion ever be proven or not? - or alternately, how can a bad or bogus social theory or economic theory ever be proven or not?

I suggest these aren't in the physical law category, and so should be evaluated based on ethics: do they exclude some portion of humanity (or select only some portion), or do they aim or hope to improve the human condition across all humanity, would be a start.

I'd also put in, being a mystic is not inconsistent with being a scientist, and that many of the top scientists are or have been mystics.

[jsherman999]

I can see the frustration of the scientists....after all, they are the ones that gave us centuries of the sun revolving around the earth, the earth being flat, and draining a person's blood to cure them of a common cold. Very hard to see why we wouldn't give them 100% of our confidence. Just recently it was all over the front pages of their Scientific Publications, where the "Missing Link" had finally been discovered, and champagne and huge parties erupted worldwide....until a lowly lab assistant properly identified it as an ancient common lizard. Yep....they have my trust.....yours too?
You know, I'm pretty tired of them bashing the "Fundies" for having an "agenda". These guys are the ones with the agenda, and it has little or nothing to do with science.
Regards!

.


This is exactly, exactly what the anti-science idiots want - making science into just another faith. If that happens, even to a degree, they win a big battle.

Science has constant questioning of its tenets built into it's very fabric. I understand how you may need to have faith that the obscure theories of something like quantum physics can actually describe a big chunk of the universe we live in, but that is not science's failing - and it doesn't mandate that you believe it.

Science is simply this: A formalized way of asking questions and coming up with ways to find the answers.

It may be hard to understand the answers, or even the questions, but it's not just another faith.

And to answer your question re trust - yes, they have my trust. If I were to pick a general vocation I trust more than research scientists, I probably couldn't do it, and that includes the general medical industry (researchers aside ).

.

[Rupert]

Well, it may not be "science" but if your neighbor strictly adhered to the Ten Commandments....I think you would have a pretty fine neighbor. Anyone disagree?
Regards!

[Nesster]

Rupert, it would depend on what the wife looked like, now wouldn't it? Say that one-armed one from the other thread...

[jsherman999]

Well, it may not be "science" but if your neighbor strictly adhered to the Ten Commandments....I think you would have a pretty fine neighbor. Anyone disagree?
Regards!

As long as he doesn't need to design a camera for me. Ten Commandments are pretty weak on sensor design, IIRC.



.

[Rupert]

Rupert, it would depend on what the wife looked like, now wouldn't it? Say that one-armed one from the other thread...

Hmmmmm....The neighbor would have to abide by them......I didn't say I would have to. But he could count on me to take excellent care of his wife if he was not available.....assuming his wife looked like that, of course!
Regards!

---------- Post added 03-08-2010 at 09:30 PM ----------

As long as he doesn't need to design a camera for me. Ten Commandments are pretty weak on sensor design, IIRC.



.

Have you seen any cameras as good as the human eye? As fast to focus...dynamic range......color....white balance......
Regards!

[gabriel_bc]

I can see the frustration of the scientists....after all, they are the ones that gave us centuries of the sun revolving around the earth, the earth being flat, and draining a person's blood to cure them of a common cold. Very hard to see why we wouldn't give them 100% of our confidence. Just recently it was all over the front pages of their Scientific Publications, where the "Missing Link" had finally been discovered, and champagne and huge parties erupted worldwide....until a lowly lab assistant properly identified it as an ancient common lizard. Yep....they have my trust.....yours too?
You know, I'm pretty tired of them bashing the "Fundies" for having an "agenda". These guys are the ones with the agenda, and it has little or nothing to do with science.
Regards!

Rupert are you talking about Darwinius masillae? Or some other species? Ardipithicus ramidus maybe? If you are referring to either of these, you're way off base. If so it's a little tiring to see such misleading stuff here...

[Rupert]

Rupert are you talking about Darwinius masillae? Or some other species? Ardipithicus ramidus maybe? If you are referring to either of these, you're way off base. If so it's a little tiring to see such misleading stuff here...

No, I'm talking about "scientists"....I think I even spelled it for you. Maybe it was too big a word for your vocabulary?
Regards!