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.
It's not that I don't trust science; I don't trust "scientists".
When science is based on the premise that "evolution" is a given, it becomes suspect.
When "scientists" disallow dissenting opinions, their "findings" become suspect ("global warming").
Science hasn't failed us; scientists have. That happens when so-called "scientists" have an agenda, and so they falsify and manipulate data in order to prove their "findings".
This is a pretty damning accusation, and I think it is inaccurate. I know hundreds, perhaps thousands of scientists. Most scientists pursue prestige over money. Science is about the pursuit of truth and intellectual leadership, and liars and phonies are held if low regard. Moreover, scientists are very competitive and we take the peer review process very seriously. We routinely trash each's others' work, not necessarily because it is dishonest, which must be rejected on principle, but even more often when it displays sloppy thinking or methodology. It is part of the job.Very few would get their papers published if they were known to be dishonest or to be obvious hacks.
The incredible success of science is because the process is strongly self-policing. We assume the an idea is garbage unless the evidence overwhelmingly proves otherwise. It is precisely the opposite of the type of thinking that occurs in religious or political cultures, where all facts are interpreted relative to a pre-ordained world view.
If you look at the chart supplied in the link, you will see that of all ancient religions and cultures, the biblical Hebrews were the furthermost off of the true value of Pi.
Wow-
You are presenting your argument at a level from which even a dull witted fifth grader could base a cogent "case" against religion.
Obviously, you have never studied any advanced mathematics or physics before, so it is pointless to "argue" these issues. I would suggest taking more advanced courses at your local university for recreational purposes and reading (even from a qualitative, "armchair" approach) theoretical physics to dig a little deeper. Your intellectual endeavors on this topic have not even scratched the surface of the issues involved. When you are better to understand the theoretical physics of additional dimensions, the apparent "problems" with Einstein's relativity and Newtonian physics, how Maxwell's apparent "imaginary solution" plays into all this, come back and talk. Until then, I am chatting with an ant.
You are presenting your argument at a level from which even a dull witted fifth grader could base a cogent "case" against religion.
Obviously, you have never studied any advanced mathematics or physics before, so it is pointless to "argue" these issues. I would suggest taking more advanced courses at your local university for recreational purposes and reading (even from a qualitative, "armchair" approach) theoretical physics to dig a little deeper. Your intellectual endeavors on this topic have not even scratched the surface of the issues involved. When you are better to understand the theoretical physics of additional dimensions, the apparent "problems" with Einstein's relativity and Newtonian physics, how Maxwell's apparent "imaginary solution" plays into all this, come back and talk. Until then, I am chatting with an ant.
Well then, mathematical genius, what is the value of Pi?
This is a pretty damning accusation, and I think it is inaccurate. I know hundreds, perhaps thousands of scientists. Most scientists pursue prestige over money. Science is about the pursuit of truth and intellectual leadership, and liars and phonies are held if low regard. Moreover, scientists are very competitive and we take the peer review process very seriously. We routinely trash each's others' work, not necessarily because it is dishonest, which must be rejected on principle, but even more often when it displays sloppy thinking or methodology. It is part of the job.Very few would get their papers published if they were known to be dishonest or to be obvious hacks.
The incredible success of science is because the process is strongly self-policing. We assume the an idea is garbage unless the evidence overwhelmingly proves otherwise. It is precisely the opposite of the type of thinking that occurs in religious or political cultures, where all facts are interpreted relative to a pre-ordained world view.
I bet you don't even realize you just canonized every researcher that ever lived. That's blind faith my friend. I'm sorry to be the one to inform you but your saints are humans. Any human can be bought and it happens every single day. While the religious nuts accept nonsense because some guy said so, you're doing exactly the same. Remember the people making the poisons that you eat, the weapons that can kill you in an endless number of ways, and the toxins that poison the very ground you walk on are scientists.
Every semester, I get a little bored the first few days of class, when I teach the difference between hypotheses and theories. I explain how a scientific theory is analogous to a law in mathematics or physics, how scientists use the word "theory" in a very different way than the general public etc. etc. Basic science stuff.
Thanks for reminding me of the importance of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robeaux
Why are you *******s so quick to believe anything/everything a scientist says with nothing to back up their "theory"?
How's that global cooling, er, global warming, er, climate change working out?
This is a pretty damning accusation, and I think it is inaccurate. I know hundreds, perhaps thousands of scientists. Most scientists pursue prestige over money. Science is about the pursuit of truth and intellectual leadership, and liars and phonies are held if low regard. Moreover, scientists are very competitive and we take the peer review process very seriously. We routinely trash each's others' work, not necessarily because it is dishonest, which must be rejected on principle, but even more often when it displays sloppy thinking or methodology. It is part of the job.Very few would get their papers published if they were known to be dishonest or to be obvious hacks.
The incredible success of science is because the process is strongly self-policing. We assume the an idea is garbage unless the evidence overwhelmingly proves otherwise. It is precisely the opposite of the type of thinking that occurs in religious or political cultures, where all facts are interpreted relative to a pre-ordained world view.
You're obviously a liberal with an agenda to promote the scientists and their wrongness
You're obviously a liberal with an agenda to promote the scientists and their wrongness
I will tell you what, you go without the benefits of science for the rest of your life, and I promise to go without the benefits of a belief in god. Can you do that? I certainly can.
No medical care for you. Can't use a computer. No transportation except your feet. You can live in a cave. I could go on and on and on.
Science has made this world better in countless ways. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in extreme denial.
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.
