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.
Even though [u]Scientific Theory[/huU] has been explained in numerous threads that they've participated in.
Philosophy has nothing to do with science.
Yes it does. Science presupposes logical inferences and valid argumentation. Futhermore, the scientific method is a set of epistemic principles.please Google "philosophy of science"and come back.kthanks
However, it has currently (in the past 50 years or so) become acceptable to use political money as well as force and insistent suasion to "prove" theories that are not based on scientific data -
I always get a kick out posts that harken back to this golden era of virtuousness. It is a common malady these days and goes hand in hand with clinging to mythology. But any one who is knowledgeable about history knows that money, power and politics has always played a part to influence science.
The Catholic Church is a prime example of denying evident data that contradicted the approved "science" of the day. As an example I point to the Condemnation of 1277, the Churches objections to Copernican system and the eventual trial and conviction of Galileo Galilei for heresy. Even in more modern times their should be no argument that christian fundamentalism remains a hinderance to evolutionary science and thus science in general.
As for Anthropomorphic Global Warming, only a person of gross intellectual dishonesty or simply unadulterated ignorance would even begin to attempt arguing that politics and money are the driving force behind the scientific warnings considering the amounts of money being spent by political organizations and their corporate sponsors who attempt to disparage the supporting data. That isn't to say that advocates for global warming are an unfunded lot, but to protest against one while remaining silent of the other is truly disingenuous.
Have you ever told a true believer that Evolution is a load of bunko?
See, that's not how it works. Come up with a convincing piece of evidence that contradicts a scientific theory, and you're likely to be taken quite seriously. Sadly, creationists tend to show up with very little evidence and a lot of conviction. That's tiresome, and yes - I for one have grown distinctly impatient with those who think strength of conviction makes up for strength of argument.
Sigh... not even ten posts into the thread and already the ad hominem "you aren't educated", "you can't speak the language", "you don't understand the basics of science" card is pulled out.
The simple problem is this:
Many people who argue against science (mainly evolution) don't know the basics of science.
Every time they say "Well, it's just a theory" proves this.
Um...no? Science is peer reviewed, contains evidence and is constantly tested.
Galileo was peer reviewed and then kept under house arrest (until he died)for having the audacity to scientifically prove the earth revolved around the sun.
Science still hasn't figured out how our solar system was created, let alone the universe, yet the reigning theory is that there is no God. How absolutely scientific of them.
Examples of unproven science that passes for fact:
- Human caused GW
- Homosexual genes
- Liberal "smart" gene
- Conservative "stupid" gene
- Darwins' theory of evolution
"The brainwashing process that passes for education around the world is still controlled by science, and that will hold true well into the future. However, the Internet will diminish science’s impact to a shadow of itself in the next decade and down to nothing in the decade following." - Lloyd Pye
Scientists are no better than preachers when it comes to creating false truths. Being peer-reviewed by like minded scientists is no better than a slap on the back - relatively meaningless. Bernie Madoff was peer-reviewed (for decades) by the financial world and look how that turned out. A bunch of people sharing the same field, giving some theory their seal of approval, means about as much as an award from a suck-up panel of "same industry" judges (Oscar). It's a bunch of people patting themselves on the back for impressing their colleagues and themselves.
Science counters fact with theory and argues that their "theories" are different from the public perception of what a theory is. In other words, science doesn't need to be based on facts. How special is that.
Examples of unproven science that passes for fact:
- Human caused GW
- Homosexual genes
- Liberal "smart" gene
- Conservative "stupid" gene
- Darwins' theory of evolution
You were right up until the end.
Evolution is as close to fact as it gets in this world. It's not "unproven" at all.
Evolution is as close to fact as it gets in this world. It's not "unproven" at all.
How is it proven? Did someone discover the missing link(s) and I didn't hear about it? Let's not confuse biolgical evolution(organisms) with the evolution of species (man.) Evolution will never be a fact, and will always be labeled a theory, for good reason.
The beauty of science is that scientists work on a sliding scale that they control. Nothing is a fact and this set's up their playing field to be anything they want it to be. If nothing is a fact, then anything can be probable. If evolution, man made GW, genes of any flavor, is to be proven, they will target their desired probability and come up with theories to support it. Science is in the mind of the beholder.
How is it proven? Did someone discover the missing link(s) and I didn't hear about it?
What missing links?
THe "missing links" in human evolution?
One specific species out of how many that we have complete evolutionary trains for?
Seriously, the "missing link" argument is just short sighted at the very least.
Yes, evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, but evolution makes no attempt at explaining where life originated just how it got to where it is.
Abiogenesis is where you look when you want to know where life originated.
And yes, we have proven how the solar system originated, and how Earth was made. That's easy to show in science, since we can observe it happening all over space. Beginnings of the universe? More complicated, but using mathematical theorems we can surmise what happened.
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.
