And don't confuse a logically and scientifically supportable hypothesis, with a wild-ass guess. There are millions of wild-ass guesses to be found. A few are bound to get a right. Human nature is to remember the few hits and forget the millions of misses.
Got examples or just platitudes. Oh Science, Science Remember cholesterol theory that created a generation of diabetics? Oh that's the marvelous thing about Science it improves . . . And so it goes . . . Moi BSc Magna Cum Laude Biology & M.D. too
You're trying to use sciece to determine if there is a god. That doesn't work. Science can't address that question.
"Nuthindidit" isn't anybody's answer to any question. It certainly doesn't come from science I doubt it comes from the majority of religions, either. Once again, Christians AND Atheists have science.
You got my post backwards. I said SCIENCE could be opposed by science or religion. I didn't say anything about how one might oppose some religious belief.
You're failing to defend the points I directly refuted. Obviously, you don't have to defend your nonsense.
Yes, there is a double meaning, with the 'anti-science!' label. The pseudoscience elites use it to demean anyone who leaves the State Approved reservation. Those who disagree with these elites are 'anti-science!', or 'haters!' .... it is a projected pejorative, with no rational basis as a descriptor. I have used it in this thread as an actual descriptor, to describe the practice and attitude of elitism, and 'science by decree,' that has become so mainstream. It is the pseudoscience elite, their enablers (and devotees), who actually PRACTICE 'anti-science' tactics and methods. But, as is typical with most agenda driven ideologues, they attempt to deflect the reality of their own fallacies, by projecting it on their ideological enemies. In this case, Real Scientific Methodology, is the enemy of the 'Science by decree!' crowd. Those who follow sound scientific methodology, and are not bullied by the True Believers in pseudoscience elitism, are berated, mocked, and vilified as 'haters!', and 'science attackers!' .... It only fools the gullible, simple minded, and indoctrinees of the State Mandated Decrees. Skeptical, disciplined, scientific minded people are not bluffed by these fake science decrees and mandated religious beliefs. We all remember Neanderthal. He was a 'missing link!', and proof that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor. Now, through dna evidence, we know that neanderthal was just another human tribe, with unique characteristics, like living tribes today. Many people carry neanderthal DNA in them, showing human descent from the common human mt-MRCA, or 'mitochondrial eve', as she is affectionately referred to.
Newspeak, fuzzy definitions, moving goalposts, outrage, ad hominem, projection, and deception are the primary tactics of the pseudoscience elites. They cannot prove their theories with credible scientific methodology, so they mandate belief through censure, censorship, and bullying. Bobbleheaded indoctrinees nod in homogeneity, abandoning reason AND science, to be led like lambs to the slaughter. Professing to be wise, they become fools. These are the tactics and hallmarks of the pseudoscience elites, and their enablers. Real Science is as foreign to them as reason. They have distorted Real scientific methodology into a religious bully pulpit. 'Science!' ..the new religion of progressive indoctrinees.
Yes, science learne more about human origins. That's how science works. Your "decree" stuff is just total nonsense. If you propose something that is clearly wrong, you are probably going to hear about it. But, that's because it's known to be wrong. The real reward in science comes from showing a current understading to be false. Claiming there is some party line to be followed is absolute BS. It's exactly the opposite. But, spouting disproven nonsense will do no more than get you written off as a crank.
Finding current understanding false might create a career, but independent verification and corroboration of existing knowledge also provides value. Einstein’s radical special relativity theory was hotly debated in the 19-teens. It took Arthur Eddington’s work in his 1919 expedition to provide the corroborative evidence to support the predictions of Einstein’s Theory to establish it’s veracity and ultimately it’s practicality. While his theory appears to be a better The development of the Standard Model of Physics in the last century was an amazing achievement and considered to be wildly successful in it’s predictions, each adding support to the model’s value, even from the huge volume of experimental observations at CERN. Yet, Einstein and other after, have struggled to reconcile the theories. Questions yet remain. Even Einstein questioned if his own model was complete. Einstein was puzzled by quantum entanglement, failed to understand the fundamental cause of gravity and many questions still exist surrounding the Standard Model. Yet both theories predict and both have practical utility. So, if it were found that the speed of light could be exceeded, or if a particle were discovered not predicted or consistent with the Standard Model what would that mean? That both theoretical models were wrong? Or... Questions... the stuff of science.
There are tons of evidence that science works. Your ability to post on this forum is proof of that. Show me any actual, factual knowledge EVER gained through religion. And everything we have ever not understood could have been used to demand that God did it. And you would have been proven wrong every time. That has NEVER been the case. We always discover physical laws that make the universe make sense. This is no different. It is just the next thing we don't understand...yet. And string theory allows that the big bang was actually a collapse of an 11 dimensional hypersurface into a 4 dimensional hypersurface. So where did the other dimensions go? They now manifest as the forces of nature. See, no mystery and no beginning. The universe has always existed.
I am doing no such a thing. I am saying that claiming god did it is no more defensible than claiming Santa Claus did it. You can't use a claim for which there is no evidence, to explain something else.
It would mean that the C limit is only valid within the domain of applicability of Relativity. In the same way, Newton wasn't wrong. But Newtonian Physics has a limited domain of applicability - speeds much slower than C, and weak or no gravity fields.
Absolutely. The story behind relativity theory is really interesting. It follows exactly what we want out of science - strong debate and independent testing. And yes, there still isn't a unification of physics. I'd certainly love to see some real anomally like you suggest. One of the big disappointments of the CERN particle accelerator is that it has pretty much just confirmed our current model of particle physics - in some ways pleasing, but not helpful in identifying where the problem is.
Well, that''s the same thing as (or way to close to) suggesting science can prove something about god. The thing is, your "no more defensible than claiming Santa Clause" presumes that the method of proof would be scientific when religion has a very different view of what is evidence or how to form argument about God. You would need to ask a person who believes in God how they concluded there is a God. My bet is that they would not use your ideas of fundaetal assumptions, evidence or logic.
Yep, the story behind the Theory of Relativity and Special Relativity is pretty interesting. Not long ago, Brian Greene, (author of the Elegant Universe and one of the early String Theory advocates) with a few others brominate in physics did a bit of a play reenacting the Development of TOR called Light Falls shared on PBS. It is worth watching. Einstein’s brilliant leap was two fold, seeing spacetime as a unified concept and envisioning gravity as mass warping spacetime. Eddington’s observations aligned exactly with Einstein’s prediction. What I find just as interesting is while Einstein's equations more accurately describe observations of gravity than Newton’s equation’s, Newton’s equations, easier for calculations, are still practical and used in many applications. Still, as I previously noted, exactly what gravity is, still eludes explanation despite recent experiments that have managed to measure Gravity waves, something predicted by Einstein, and further predicted to propagate at the speed of light (which is not about light but considered the speed of causality). Then too, major progress is being made on using the ‘Spooky as Einstein called it’ phenomena of partial entanglement for applications such as communications encryption and quantum data error mitigation...yet, we still don’t understand the underlying mechanism (multiple dimensions?). There have been many interesting experiments at CERN, and yes, so far every thing observed has been predicted by the Standard Model, including observation of the Higgs. Yet, many questions remain, are their multiple flavors of the Higgs? Is it possible we might see evidence suggesting multiple dimensions and even gravitons? Those and many others still exist... https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2011.0452 As CERN coms back on line and ramps up it’s energy potential exciting things may be on the Horizon, most exciting would be observations that would lead to the extension of the Standard model or even a new framework of understanding. One question is, what are the energy limitations for discovery at CERN? And what that might mean to building a larger version in Texas as was once proposed? A good place to monitor, aside from the CERN web site https://home.cern/news/news/cern/welcome-new-cern-website Is https://phys.org/ where almost daily new discoveries are reported across multiple domains of scientific inquiry. BTW, CERN has recorded so much data it will still take decades to sift through it. Data may already exist for new discoveries. The CERN site has open links to data where anyone interested can participate in sifting through the data in a visual manner where you may be the first to stumble on something yet unseen.
.. This is why it is too frustrating to 'debate' with progressive indoctrinees. You construct a strawman, pound your narrative drum, and do not address MY points, at all. Science proving God? Really? i have no desire to bicker about religious beliefs. You have your beliefs, i have mine. May they bring us comfort.. But since 'anti-science' is revealed through censorship and definition Nazi decrees, i cannot debate the science. I am forbidden to, by the PC narratives. You can rest in the assurance that your cherished beliefs are secure, guarded with zealous devotion by the True Believers.
..this has nothing to do with my post.. do you even bother reading, before launching into your talking points?
??? Why would I address YOUR points when responding to some other poseter??? I'm not interested in your religious beliefs. I haven't commented on your religion - other than to suggest you move your religious commentation to the religion thread. My post that you responded to is a case in point. I pointed out that using science to dispute religious issues is not legitimate. AND, you can debate science. But, applying religious foundations and logic to science makes no more sense than applying science to religion. I will continue to advocate for not mixing religion and science, since these tools have different fundamental assumptions, different ideas of what constitutes evidence, what is required to indicate truth or falsity, etc. No two systems that are that dramatically different can be mixed with any expectation of being functional.
What simplistic views. What about the "Culture" of science. I got E=mc^2 tattooed on my chest. I'm an idiot. what the hell did that do to me. Darwin's evolution got popular enough to become a part of the Nazi strength of the survival to evolve over the extincting inferior species. What is your message with science, anyway? Where are actual scientists doing work, and some Christian jumped in, don't discover that. that's ridiculous. He's like , I didn't try Calculus B/C 4 times over and in reality they don't want your "weed out" class any bigger anyway, like they want you there in engineering. I was trying for Pope too, Engineer Pope.
Defending science isn't appropriate in a thread titled "the rise of anti-science"??? Besides, you're the one attacking science.
I'm not sure why "Nazi" gets brought up in the context of dumping on science. Numerous countries have used science and technology to commit horrendous assaults on human beings. Should we be searchig out what science they are using and attempt to destroy that sciece? I believe that every individual should know how science works. I don't believe that everybody needs to know special and general relativity or evolution. Statistics would be far more important. But, if someone wants to argue against these and other key scientific theories they should at least bother to understand they say.
I'm sorry, that you just ignored what I said, trying again... The inner SS squads exterminating Jews out in all the villages know this is a race war of extermination for a Superior Arian Race of mythical origins that will evolve with Darwinian Evolution. Every single citizen in germany Should have Hitiler's "Mein Kampf" on hand, especially party members. You're promoting not increased industry of science, but regard of science, I met you at societies with extreme regard for science, did you play "Return To Castle Wolfenstein"?
I absolutely do not accept any of this as an accusation against science - or technology, for that matter. I don't know you reference and I state the above in the extreme so you can more easily agree or disagree.
The 'Science!' .. .. true believers here pretend that any criticism of some dubious methodology is 'An attack on science!' ... .. .. Quick! Rally the Defenders of the Faith, and dispatch these blasphemers! No criticism or questioning of the Official, Approved Dogma is allowed! Rise and defend the High Priests of Science!! ..progressive indoctrinees..
