The rise of anti-science

Discussion in 'Science' started by usfan, Apr 4, 2014.

  1. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Instead of bitching on the internet anonymously, why don’t you actually show the science is incorrect, get published, and claim your Nobel prize?
     
  2. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Science is comprised of ideas that can be but have not yet been disproved. There is an increase in belief in antiscientific (not-disprovable) beliefs such as Darwinian evolution, anthropogenic-catastrophic-global climate change and transgenderism.
     
    william kurps likes this.
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,468
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes - all human understanding has the potential to be wrong, regardless of the topic. That includes religion, science, metaphysics, and every other topic.

    We are humans.

    Science is designed to eliminate false ideas as fast as humanly possible. It is limited to hypotheses which would be possible to prove false using observational evidence - so string theory, religion, etc., can not be addressed, because no theory involving those topics could be proven false with observational evidence.

    Confidence in the theory of evolution has long been so significant that it is a foundation of all modern biology and has been for a very long time.

    Suggesting that theory is in ANY kind of doubt is ridiculous.

    (I'll ignore your other ideas there.)
     
  4. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fundamentalism?
     
  5. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman
     
    usfan and Lil Mike like this.
  6. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "The early bird gets the worm." - Book of proverbs, 1605, widely quoted to this day
    I play tennis and reflected on this absurdity last week.

    upload_2019-12-8_17-2-38.png
     

    Attached Files:

  7. william kurps

    william kurps Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes Received:
    1,872
    Trophy Points:
    113

    No the only thing we get right is religion I can honestly feel mother Mary cross my bones when I read a post and feel her, nope.

    Just word salad I feel
     
  8. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,468
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whatever.

    If you want to tell me why ANY ONE of the other millions of religions are wrong, go fot it.

    But, don't bother if you don't want to.
     
  9. william kurps

    william kurps Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes Received:
    1,872
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Just go for the truth, take out three bibles, go to church every day..


    Ya know what I just felt it in you..holy crap

    Mother Mary says..

    Crap I lost the feeling post some more please
     
  10. william kurps

    william kurps Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes Received:
    1,872
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Post some more I want to see if you have it
     
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,468
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Been there. Done that. Baptists don't give out t-shirts.

    Let me know if you can identify any major religion that isn't "True" - and how you know that.
     
  12. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The farther we go from real science, the fewer of the thousands of engineering jobs we can fill. Corporations are feeling the pinch and campaigning hard for more educated foreign nationals. They also know the ultimate trend will be to move their research facilities abroad,
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  13. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If someone could just, pick up an ashtray off a ufo, it would be meaningful. Meantime, all we have are eye witnesses, the most unreliable evidence,
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2020
  14. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yup, you've hit the nail on the head here. I've had many exchanges with him and others, and that is exactly what is happening. People like him follow the philosophy of Francis Bacon (rather than Karl Popper) concerning what science is. This is why they so regularly confuse religion with science. They operate under such limited and imprecise definitions of those words that they can't make logical argumentation about them (since they are unaware of the logical framework behind those definitions).

    Science is, simply, "a set of falsifiable theories". That's all science is. All the "supporting evidence", "experiments", "methods", "peer review", "publications", "websites", "consensus", etc. in the world will not in any way bless, sanctify, or otherwise make holy, any theory (suddenly transforming it into a "theory of science"). What sets science apart from religion is the fact that one can perform a null hypothesis test on the theory (due to it being falsifiable).

    Both science and religion start at an identical logical standpoint, which is with a theory. A theory is an explanatory argument, and an argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. Once the theory (explanatory argument) is formed, one now has in their hands a circular argument (since ALL theories begin as circular arguments). Contrary to what you might have falsely learned in some logic class in college, a circular argument in and of itself is NOT a fallacy (an error of logic). A circular argument takes the logical form A->A, thus a circular argument is logically valid since the conclusion follows from the predicate. A circular argument fallacy, on the other hand, occurs whenever one attempts to prove a circular argument (using the conclusion of a circular argument as proof of the conclusion as True). The circular argument fallacy takes the logical form (A->A) -> A.

    It is at this very point that science and religion separate. Religion is unable to move beyond being circular in nature. The most one can do is toss a bunch of supporting evidence at it. Evidence is simply any statement that supports an argument. This is why religion is best defined as "an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it". Science, on the other hand, begins as a circular argument in the same manner, since all theories (explanatory arguments) begin as circular arguments. The difference with science is that the particular theory in question is falsifiable. The theory can be tested (against a null hypothesis), but that testing must be accessible, practical, quantifiable, specific, and produce a specific result. If a theory survives internal testing (against logic... ie, the theory is logically sound) and external testing (as described prior), then the theory becomes a theory of science and remains a theory of science until it fails to survive such a test (aka "is falsified"). At that point, the "once a theory of science" is now completely and utterly destroyed. So, as you can see, there was NO supporting evidence involved here, like there was with religion. ONLY conflicting evidence was used to falsify the theory. Thus, science is best defined as "a set of falsifiable theories". Surviving null hypothesis testing is what allows a theory to become a theory of science, and is what separates science from religion.

    This logical framework of religion and science is what posters like Will and others do not understand (and/or deny). This is why they believe theories such as the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are "science". They are not, as they are not falsifiable in any accessible manner. They are instead religions, and will always remain religions.

    Precisely. When logic fails someone, they will then resort to mantras, chants, insults, self-declared victories, and the like...

    You will notice that they will never directly address any of the arguments that I have made in this post, and that is because they don't have as much practice in using and applying logic as I do.
     
    usfan likes this.
  15. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    B.S. You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
    You’re no scientist, that’s for sure. A scientific theory has already been subjected to scrutiny known as the scientific method...look it up instead if making it up.

    keywordsuggest.org
    A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2020
    Diablo likes this.
  16. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't even bother. You are dealing with someone who posted this earlier today in another thread..................................

     
  17. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Argument of the Stone Fallacy.

    Irrelevant.

    Science is not a "method".

    False Authority Fallacy. keywordsuggest.org is not the authoritative reference for any word definition.
     
  18. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Strange dude then ?
     
    rahl likes this.
  19. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We’ve already established you know nothing about science....moving on.
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,468
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Both science and religion begin with a set of assumptions.

    The primary assumption in science is that the universe may be meaningfully observed.

    Most if not all religions don't begin with that assumption, as in religion what we see is not necessarily indicative.

    Christianity starts with the assumption that there is a god that is the prime mover.

    There really is no way to claim that science and religion have something in common.
     
  21. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And what does that mean when it is then proven wrong?

    It is not all that long ago that the Molecule was thought to be the smallest thing there was. Then it was pushed to the Atom. Now we know of the particles that make up an atom, and the existence of subatomic particles.

    I grew up with cosmology books that stated that the Milky Way Galaxy was the entirety of the Universe. It even had a large picture on the cover of what it called the "Andromeda Nebula". It was so old that it did not even recognize that it was an actual galaxy in and of itself.

    The problem with most who do not really understand Science is that in order to be accepted, even those that believe in a theory most must be absolutely willing to completely discard every thing they thought was true and accept that they were completely wrong.

    This is why myself and so many others say that the vast majority of "Man Made Global Warming" nuts are not following real science. It is more akin to a religion, and they actually use the sloppiest techniques to try and prove they are right. Including such horrible things such as "chasing the data", and "correcting data to fit the expected results".

    That is not science, that is changing the facts to fit your beliefs. And so far none of their predictions have come anywhere even close to being true. In fact, in almost every prediction going back decades they have been completely wrong (if not 180 degrees from what actually happened).

    This is why I refuse to take them seriously. In real science, you make a theory. And if it is wrong you simply toss it out and make a new one. You do not try over and over and over again to try and find a way to make it fit no matter what. ANd ignore when it is a complete failure and insist it is correct even when the data does not match.
     
  22. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In science, we don’t discard theories because new evidence shows a contradiction.

    Did we disregard Newtonian physics because quantum theory came along ? No, a science theory is still valid under the conditions it was set up for. It’s ridiculous to use anything but Newtonian physics when “you” are driving a car. You will crash a car otherwise. You don’t consider the “ very small” when driving a car, yet the devises used to help you, certainly do.

    The vast majority of communication is now influence by quantum theory.....and most other science fields as well. Yet, the guy/gal who has to hang transformers or set up satellite dishes themselves is mainly concerned with Newtonian physics. They coexist.
     
  23. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, you grew up in a era where the evidence we had only supported the Milky Way galaxy. If you were going to space explore with a probe with the technology we have today, you would still only consider the Milky Way as a finite limit to our efforts. If instead, we used observational and not physical probes that have the advantages of greater distance in information gathering, we now expand our universe.......because we can.

    That anyone doesn’t know the difference means their education is incomplete.
     
  24. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If what you believe is also a belief of other people, you’re right, they are sadly more misinformed. I really don’t know how or why with all the true science sources out there, people that represent theses false ideas can’t just google reliable sources......like the science departments if every university in the world.....or freakin NASA.
     
  25. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What? Like most of your posts, that makes absolutely no sense. And I never said those were my textbooks. My mom collected textbooks, that was one from the early 1920s. Obviously you are not even aware that Edwin Hubble had finally been validated in his discovery that Andromeda was outside the Milky Way in 1929 (a discovery he first reported in 1919).

    And all that talking about the milky way being a finite limit and the rest, that is pure garbage. You might as well say then there is nothing smaller than a molecule then, since we can not directly observe anything smaller than that.

    You are literally doing exactly what those we complain about are doing. You are changing the data in order to justify your beliefs. You have a belief, and you will twist and stretch anything in order to try and make the facts fit it.

    Like that silly statement about throwing out Newtonian Physics. We have had additions to it in order to expand on how it applies or does not apply to various states outside of normal conditions (such as Special Relativity), but the foundations that Sir Newton originally described still apply all these centuries later. In fact, without Classical Mechanics, none of the theories that follow would be possible at all.

    Oh, and we have observed things that are far more distant than we can ever travel even today. You sound absolutely silly when you try to inject we can now explore farther with physical probes. When even the 2 most distant oneshave barely even left our Solar System after over 40 years of travel.
     

Share This Page