Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,458,803 times
Reputation: 6670
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gplex
Maybe someone needs to read my post again... Or explain why my post showing that a person can "see" something, without actually seeing it, unlike an imaginary god.
That's because some folks aren't really interested in addressing what you're saying, they just want to argue about the same old "strawmen", over and over. So trying to talk to them is a lot like trying to argue with the Jehovah's Witnesses that come knocking on your door.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontanaGuy
No. It's the most effective means of making progress by determining what is fact and what is not. If we raised the status of non scientific means of investigating any phenomenon we would just be lowering the bar for what can be considered to be legitimate evidence. The scientific method has resulted in the modern world with so many things that we now take for granted and nothing has changed in terms of human knowledge or experience that reduces it's importance.
Nope, not talking about "replacing" or "eliminating" the Scientific Method, only questioning whether it can be improved and made more useful for studying the growing body of knowledge about less "quantifiable" subjects (and perhaps even bringing some of them into the "light"). Although if it also means making fun of a few over-rigid "born-again" atheists, hey, then it's a "2-fer"! ;-p
Simple... If it isn't reproduceable, it's nothing more than an interesting anecdote. Science doesn't delve into that realm.
Quantum physics looks nothing like philosophy. You've simply latched onto someone else's misconception. It's counterintuitive, but incredibly consistent.
Exactly, O-G! As well, Montana Guy's point truly finalizes this thread's thinly disguised "arguments", IMHO. The predictable Christian resistance to science is simply a last-ditch effort to rationalize it's demonization. If Christians could only get a political consensus on that one, and perhaps have The Debil Science minimized in schools, they could re-route us back onto the paths of righteousness and salvation. Before, you know, That Glorious Tribulation?
So sorry; t'ain't gonna happen. In fact, if we don't ramp up science's overall influence in our US education system, and soon, we'll soon be a depressed, diminished 3rd world country, overtaken by the technology-hungry and techno-savy Chinese. At least they understand the proper role and intrinsic value of a group of folks who simply won't allow common sense to flavor their everyday decisions....
Improve the SM? Where specifically? Drop the peer-review? Drop the Abstract, Discussion,Techniques or Method sections, or leave out common sense conclusions?
So then: tell us exactly what needs improvement? It's the most well-thought out, carefull evolved and logical system out there now, and I personally don't see any gaping holes in it. It creates trust and fact. But I'm always open to suggestions and dialogue if it's rational. And you disliking the reproduceable conclusions to some research question does not qualify as a good reason to change it all until you do like the results.
Sorry you can't handle the consequences of this well-evolved and proven method, one that routinely steps on the neck of all the ancient myth-based feel-good, warm'n'fuzzy determinations that pervade all ancient religions, derived when no such method existed to check anything out. Wild claims meant devout believers. Oh, and power. Now science per se has that power, and it's not in the hands of any particular group. Anything science claims can be checked and re-checked. That makes it inherently honest, which must stick in the craw of the Church. Ouch! Pass the Prilosec!
Well, there's no intelligent life or responses here. Just "unicorn" arguments. Time to move on.
That is because the answer IS 'no'. Rifleman has it right in his concluding paragraph in post #102 above. We will likely soon be a 3rd-world country, hanging on to our cherished old-time myths, while the Chinese and others pass us by.
I'm sure some here remember the term "atmospheric procurement" which means pulling things out of thin air with no factual basis. It's quite similar to "rectal procurement" except for the additional slight odor.
That is because the answer IS 'no'. Rifleman has it right in his concluding paragraph in post #102 above. We will likely soon be a 3rd-world country, hanging on to our cherished old-time myths, while the Chinese and others pass us by.
Funny you should say that...
The world’s economic balance of power is shifting dramatically. By 2050, the United States and Europe, long the traditional leaders of the global economy, will be joined in economic size by emerging markets in Asia and Latin America. China will become the world’s largest economy in 2032, and grow to be 20 percent larger than the United States by 2050. Over the next forty years, nearly 60 percent of G20 economic growth will come from Brazil, China, India, Russia, and Mexico alone. The G20 in 2050 - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,458,803 times
Reputation: 6670
Yes, funny indeed...
"With creativity, a reverse trend has just been identified and is being reported for the first time here: American creativity scores are falling."
"The accepted definition of creativity is production of something original and useful, and that’s what’s reflected in the tests. There is never one right answer. To be creative requires divergent thinking (generating many unique ideas) and then convergent thinking (combining those ideas into the best result)."
"When faculty of a major Chinese university asked Plucker to identify trends in American education, he described our focus on standardized curriculum, rote memorization, and nationalized testing. “After my answer was translated, they just started laughing out loud,” Plucker says. “They said, ‘You’re racing toward our old model. But we’re racing toward your model, as fast as we can.’ ”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
