Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 20:12:54 GMT
The problem with saying 'Scientists are idiots' is that it only takes one moderately intelligent scientist to prove you wrong. There probably is one out there somewhere... I modified it
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 1, 2017 20:15:00 GMT
Scientists They think they know everything This statement makes no sense. The entire reason they do research, is precisely because they don't know everything.
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Mar 1, 2017 20:20:17 GMT
I always thought how it was weird that "scientific theories" are said to not actually be theories. Then why do they call them that?
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Mar 1, 2017 20:23:21 GMT
I always thought how it was weird that "scientific theories" are said to not actually be theories. Then why do they call them that? "Scientific theory" is different to the normal use of the word "theory". Why's that weird?
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 1, 2017 20:29:11 GMT
I always thought how it was weird that "scientific theories" are said to not actually be theories. Then why do they call them that? It's contextual - sort of like "phobia", which has a clinical as well as a social meaning.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 1, 2017 20:53:10 GMT
That's rather the point of science, it must updated and revised when new information becomes available, it's why we don't use scientific textbooks from the 1880s. In contrast holy books from hundreds of years ago never get revised (I'm guessing that's the comparison you're trying to make)
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Mar 1, 2017 22:12:11 GMT
Statements like these just proves that the knowledge of the scientific method is insufficient. As Eva Yojimbo we are often proven wrong, the whole method is designed to do so. It's when we can't find anything wrong with the theory, that it becomes a scientific truth, until someone comes up with something better.
If we believe we know everything? Absolutely not. That is the reason for us to continue.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 2, 2017 1:06:17 GMT
Scientists They think they know everything This is another indubitable thing. I find the homunculus idea fascinating - it seems males have always wanted to be able to reproduce without women!
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 2, 2017 1:07:08 GMT
Which is not what the OP said...
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 2, 2017 1:10:13 GMT
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Mar 2, 2017 1:26:17 GMT
I think one of the most common disagreements of science is whether or not Pluto is a planet. First it is, then it isn't, then it is, then it isn't, then it is, etc. I would think if science were always right that the observations would be the same every time.
|
|
vomisacaasi
Sophomore
@vomisacaasi
Posts: 186
Likes: 44
|
Post by vomisacaasi on Mar 2, 2017 1:32:48 GMT
The observations are the same every time. It is only the interpretation of those observations that are changing.
It would be if you saw a herd of Zebra's off in the distance. 'Look at those horses they all have black and white stripes' They are horses. You get closer and gather more data. Well they are related to horses but are not in fact horses.
Bingo scientists stop calling them horses.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 2, 2017 1:33:44 GMT
Mmm, so you say, and I am going to have to trust you as I am here many hours later. (It goes against the grain to take your word for anything, still I suppose your track record of "mis-statements" is nowhere as bad as EEH for instance)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 1:37:50 GMT
I think one of the most common disagreements of science is whether or not Pluto is a planet. First it is, then it isn't, then it is, then it isn't, then it is, etc. I would think if science were always right that the observations would be the same every time. Along the same lines, it humors me when scientists unashamedly announce that everything they thought about some moon of Jupiter was wrong when they get feedback from some investigating spacecraft. It seems to escape the scientists that everything they'd been telling us was false. At one time, scientists believed in spontaneous generation. Then science discovered that that was untrue. Yet, now, some scientists are claiming that life came spontaneously from some primordial soup. The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that since scientists are human beings that they're just as subject to psychological denial as the rest of us who don't claim to know so much and aren't necessarily compelled to find it all out. To me the argument is that eventually for all of humanity faith in something supernatural is inevitable, but that humans don't want to face that truth because it means giving up the idea that we can ultimately take care of ourselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 1:38:59 GMT
Because alchemists and their magic mumbo jumbo are "science" Jesus Christ! In Europe we have had The Enlightenment since then... It might even make it to America one day, who knows? Your high horse just sh!t on my country's name. Clean it up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 1:40:22 GMT
I actually laughed out loud.
Blade, you'd laugh uncontrollably for hours if someone jingled keys in front of your face. Wow. Hitler just made a witticism. It sucked, but at least he tried, the senile old dick.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 2, 2017 1:45:13 GMT
Mmm, so you say, and I am going to have to trust you as I am here many hours later. (It goes against the grain to take your word for anything, still I suppose your track record of "mis-statements" is nowhere as bad as EEH for instance)
In this case you don't have to take anyone's word, just follow the link (it links to the middle of this thread showing the OP admitting that he edited his OP). All you have to believe is that this website is showing accurately what the OP wrote.
|
|
vomisacaasi
Sophomore
@vomisacaasi
Posts: 186
Likes: 44
|
Post by vomisacaasi on Mar 2, 2017 1:47:30 GMT
I think one of the most common disagreements of science is whether or not Pluto is a planet. First it is, then it isn't, then it is, then it isn't, then it is, etc. I would think if science were always right that the observations would be the same every time. Along the same lines, it humors me when scientists unashamedly announce that everything they thought about some moon of Jupiter was wrong when they get feedback from some investigating spacecraft. It seems to escape the scientists that everything they'd been telling us was false. At one time, scientists believed in spontaneous generation. Then science discovered that that was untrue. Yet, now, some scientists are claiming that life came spontaneously from some primordial soup. The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that since scientists are human beings that they're just as subject to psychological denial as the rest of us who don't claim to know so much and aren't necessarily compelled to find it all out. To me the argument is that eventually for all of humanity faith in something supernatural is inevitable, but that humans don't want to face that truth because it means giving up the idea that we can ultimately take care of ourselves. That is a complete miss characterization of spontaneous generation and Abiogenesis. One is about complex organisms being generated fully formed out of nothing while the other is about simple life taking eons to form. But I suspect you know this and are simply playing the fool
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 2, 2017 3:01:59 GMT
Mmm, so you say, and I am going to have to trust you as I am here many hours later. You don't have to trust me: I linked to his post where said he modified it. There are two posters on the first page that quoted what he originally said.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 2, 2017 3:10:24 GMT
I think one of the most common disagreements of science is whether or not Pluto is a planet. First it is, then it isn't, then it is, then it isn't, then it is, etc. I would think if science were always right that the observations would be the same every time. Along the same lines, it humors me when scientists unashamedly announce that everything they thought about some moon of Jupiter was wrong when they get feedback from some investigating spacecraft. It seems to escape the scientists that everything they'd been telling us was false. At one time, scientists believed in spontaneous generation. Then science discovered that that was untrue. Yet, now, some scientists are claiming that life came spontaneously from some primordial soup. The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that since scientists are human beings that they're just as subject to psychological denial as the rest of us who don't claim to know so much and aren't necessarily compelled to find it all out. To me the argument is that eventually for all of humanity faith in something supernatural is inevitable, but that humans don't want to face that truth because it means giving up the idea that we can ultimately take care of ourselves. I've truly never understood this argument... that scientists retract previous statements because of new knowledge is a GOOD thing. It means they're updating their beliefs based on evidence. No scientist anywhere has ever said or claimed that they or science, in general, knows everything. That's the entire point of continued research and experiments. Sometimes research and experiments overturn previous paradigms; more often than not they reinforce them. Compared to something like religion, when's the last time you ever heard a preacher or theologian announce that new evidence or research showed what they previously thought was wrong? Further, the scientific method--that of hypothesis, experiment, peer-review, repeated experiments--does as much as humanly possible to take psychological bias out of it, because it's not one person just putting forth an idea and demanding everyone accept it; it's putting forth an idea, putting forth evidence, and then submitting that to being picked apart by everyone in the same field. There's no more rigorous way for testing ideas, hypotheses, and forming theories about how reality works. The leap from the improving models of science to an inevitability of "supernatural faith" is a curious one. How in the world does "we don't know everything and we're going to continue to investigate and try to be less wrong" lead to supernatural faith being necessary?
|
|