ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:Quote:unless they're both wrong This is plausible. But that's why there's peer reviews. And how often do two scientists disagree about something and are both wrong? please =;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:Quote:unless they're both wrong This is plausible. But that's why there's peer reviews. And how often do two scientists disagree about something and are both wrong? please =; This doesn't change the initial point - science is knowledge gained from observation.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
Eastern Glory wrote:paladisious wrote:ricecrackers wrote:paladisious wrote:ricecrackers wrote:science is a field of study. its not a fact about anything.
its like saying that music is true. its dumb.
what if two scientists disagree about something? which "science" is true then? I agree he worded it in a less direct way that what he could have, but it seems you have a naff idea of what science is. Science isn't a "field of study", indeed, science is study. To quote wiki: "Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." Science is all about figuring shit out via the Scientific Method, which is, as the above explanation says, to prove things via repeatable experiments in the real world based on systematic and impartial testing that anybody can repeat and has a chance to disprove if they collect different data. Science by it's own method asks to be proven wrong, and by that very method is always right. So what he's saying is what we can discover with the data as it comes to hand via the Scientific Method about the universe will always be true, even if it makes your baby Jesus cry. Whether you like it or not. Edited by paladisious: 16/3/2014 11:44:02 PM sounds more like this new definition of 'science' is creating a new religion i really want to call it scientology but i believe thats already taken Religion wrote:My god says that slavery is a-ok, and if you say it's not god will be very cross. Science wrote:Based on my observations of the data currently available I hypothesise Theory X, but if anyone else gets different results from this data, or new data emerges, of course we'll be making a new hypothesis and furthering our understanding of the universe, which is rad and will help everybody. If science is the new religion, then hallelujah. Did you seriously just use the Ephesians passage to say that the Christian God supports slavery? :lol: You can do so, so much better than that :lol: I see you moving those goalposts, don't think you'll get away with that. Not one jot or tittle. The whole point of the two opposing quotes of "religion" and "science" was that one holds one view and rejects all opposing data, often to the point of violence, and one that invites and absorbs dissenting data and uses it to build better hypotheses and theories, technology, professional techniques, medicine, football tactics, etc for the betterment of all.
|
|
|
|
|
Glory Recruit
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
Did anyone watch Cosmos a space time odyssey tonight? Hosted by thread title guy.
"This adventure is made possible by generations of searchers, strictly adhering following to a simple set of rules. Test ideas by experiment and observation, build on those ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail. Follow the the evidence wherever it leads, and question everything, accept these terms and the Cosmos is yours."
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
dreadful show
question everything but dont question global warming, sure
|
|
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
For anyone yet unacquainted with ricecrackers, his stupidity isn't put on or contrived; he actually believes the babble he writes.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:For anyone yet unacquainted with ricecrackers, his stupidity isn't put on or contrived; he actually believes the babble he writes. playing the man and not the ball who are you by the way?
|
|
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:humbert wrote:For anyone yet unacquainted with ricecrackers, his stupidity isn't put on or contrived; he actually believes the babble he writes. playing the man and not the ball who are you by the way? A simple pilgrim doing the Lord's work.
|
|
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Please don't feed the trolls.
It only encourages them.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
u4486662 wrote:Please don't feed the trolls.
It only encourages them. so someone who disagrees with you is a troll? i see how this works
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn - A-league Mad
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Iridium1010 wrote:Did anyone watch Cosmos a space time odyssey tonight? Hosted by thread title guy.
"This adventure is made possible by generations of searchers, strictly adhering following to a simple set of rules. Test ideas by experiment and observation, build on those ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail. Follow the the evidence wherever it leads, and question everything, accept these terms and the Cosmos is yours." I didn't get to see it, but a friend of mine said it was like most science shows. Interesting but very beginners level. I used to have discovery science on cable, but the shows melded into a seamlessly never ending beginners into to every science topic. I wish their were more intermediate shows aimed at people who have a basic understanding but want more 'nitty gritty'. Saying that , I did point out that it is probably the shows intention to be a starting point for people to go get further education if they want to know more.
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:For anyone yet unacquainted with ricecrackers, his stupidity isn't put on or contrived; he actually believes the babble he writes. At first I thought he was just a troll. Then I realised that he's genuinely stupid.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
let me remind you of your monumental fail afromanGT... ricecrackers wrote:afromanGT wrote:ricecrackers wrote:science is a field of study. its not a fact about anything.
its like saying that music is true. its dumb.
what if two scientists disagree about something? which "science" is true then?
Edited by ricecrackers: 16/3/2014 03:20:33 PM Science - from the latin for "knowledge acquired from observation". If two scientists disagree about something [size=8]one is right and one is wrong. There's no two ways about it.[/size] unless they're both wrong :-s i'd call that scientific evidence that you possess a certain quality that you accuse me of Edited by ricecrackers: 17/3/2014 07:10:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
If two scientists - observing - are both wrong then their observations aren't very good. They're not really scientists then are they? An unlikely caveat doesn't constitute a 'monumental fail'.
Kids, never argue with a moron, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
oh dear
|
|
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:oh dear "Science is a religion"
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:ricecrackers wrote:oh dear "Science is a religion" if something that is unproven is dictated as fact by a form of government then yes, science indeed becomes a religion
|
|
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:humbert wrote:ricecrackers wrote:oh dear "Science is a religion" if something that is unproven is dictated as fact by a form of government then yes, science indeed becomes a religion I would agree with you on that account. Where, pray, has Tyson advocated a faith-based approach to science?
|
|
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:ricecrackers wrote:oh dear "Science is a religion" Praise be to God. 
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:humbert wrote:ricecrackers wrote:oh dear "Science is a religion" if something that is unproven is dictated as fact by a form of government then yes, science indeed becomes a religion :lol: You're hilarious. If it's not proven objectively and repeatably, then by definition it is not science.
|
|
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
u4486662 wrote:humbert wrote:ricecrackers wrote:oh dear "Science is a religion" Praise be to God.  Blessed is he who intercedes, and channels the will of the father.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
u4486662 wrote:humbert wrote:ricecrackers wrote:oh dear "Science is a religion" Praise be to God. 
|
|
|
|
|
Glory Recruit
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Lol.
442 is awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Glory Recruit
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:Iridium1010 wrote:Did anyone watch Cosmos a space time odyssey tonight? Hosted by thread title guy.
"This adventure is made possible by generations of searchers, strictly adhering following to a simple set of rules. Test ideas by experiment and observation, build on those ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail. Follow the the evidence wherever it leads, and question everything, accept these terms and the Cosmos is yours." I didn't get to see it, but a friend of mine said it was like most science shows. Interesting but very beginners level. I used to have discovery science on cable, but the shows melded into a seamlessly never ending beginners into to every science topic. I wish their were more intermediate shows aimed at people who have a basic understanding but want more 'nitty gritty'. Saying that , I did point out that it is probably the shows intention to be a starting point for people to go get further education if they want to know more. Yeah I supposed if you watch lots of other science shows it has stuff you've heard of before, but I liked the way it was presented.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glory Recruit
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
Had to Google that, but I can live with that if it makes me understand you better babe<3:lol: Ramen.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
humbert wrote:ricecrackers wrote:humbert wrote:ricecrackers wrote:oh dear "Science is a religion" if something that is unproven is dictated as fact by a form of government then yes, science indeed becomes a religion I would agree with you on that account. Where, pray, has Tyson advocated a faith-based approach to science? he said "science is a fact" for starters he said the universe is 13.8 billion years old... i'm quite sure that hasnt been proven, i'd call that a leap of faith then he said we cant give equal time to the "flat earthers" when alluding to "global warming deniers" Quote:Tyson was speaking to CNN about his new series, "Cosmos," on Sunday. "Reliable Sources" host Brian Stelter asked him about the media's coverage of climate change and other science issues.
Tyson was emphatic in his response:
I think the media has to sort of come out of this ethos that I think was in principle a good one, but doesn't really apply in science. The ethos was, whatever story you give, you have to give the opposing view, and then you can be viewed as balanced...you don't talk about the spherical earth with NASA and then say let's give equal time to the flat-earthers.
Plus, science is not there for you to cherry pick. You know, I said this once and it's gotten a lot of Internet play, I said the good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.
I guess you can decide whether or not to believe in it, but that doesn't change the reality of an emergent scientific truth. well the causes of climate change are very much unproven, so he's advocating a faith based approach here. by comparing climate change skeptics to "flat earthers" he forgets that flat earthers in their time were the majority and believed the science was settled such that lone scientists like Galileo were ostracised by the government of the time (the catholic church) Galileo in this case was the skeptic and time proved him correct against the overwhelming majority
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
paladisious wrote:ricecrackers wrote:humbert wrote:ricecrackers wrote:oh dear "Science is a religion" if something that is unproven is dictated as fact by a form of government then yes, science indeed becomes a religion :lol: You're hilarious. If it's not proven objectively and repeatably, then by definition it is not science. you're not telling me anything i dont know however current times demonstrate its not playing out that way. the term science is being abused and is indeed promoted as a new doctrine, a new age religion that is settled by consensus.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:paladisious wrote:ricecrackers wrote:humbert wrote:ricecrackers wrote:oh dear "Science is a religion" if something that is unproven is dictated as fact by a form of government then yes, science indeed becomes a religion :lol: You're hilarious. If it's not proven objectively and repeatably, then by definition it is not science. you're not telling me anything i dont know however current times demonstrate its not playing out that way. the term science is being abused and is indeed promoted as a new doctrine, a new age religion that is settled by consensus. How, and by who? Again, science is indeed a doctrine, a doctrine of objective testing and full disclosure of results to dissenting data. If you're referring to climate change then the available data seems to show an unnatural shift in line with the amount of carbon we humans chucked into the atmosphere since we've been able to do it. There's no data that leads to any competing to this.
|
|
|
|