Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Rotation Advertisements



We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.


If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.


Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk


If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
What is Science, what is its value, is there something better?
Topic Started: Sep 23 2015, 07:16 AM (802 Views)
Delicieuxz
Member Avatar


This thread is a branching from a discussion in the Unpopular Opinions thread.



Gearfried
Sep 2 2015, 06:23 PM
I think science is like a dogma religion. true science is supposed to always question and test theories.



I agree with this. Science is BS, and is whatever the observer wants it to be. The only one constant of science is that everything which is considered as a fact today will later be replaced with a different fact. Science has become a religion, and it has become dogma.

The Problem with Willed-Determination & Observation Being Authority
A Scientific Fact

Things like Mathematics, Chemistry, and Physics are not science, as there is no degree of test / observation within them - they simply are. Though they may be studied through the Scientific Method, that studying has not resulted in the knowing of the truth of them, and as I said, the only one constant of science is that everything which is considered as a fact today will later be replaced with a different fact - which means that everything put forth as a scientific fact is already False, just like every previous scientific fact was before it got replaced with a newer one - yet until one gets replaced, many people act as if it was true.


Also, science is rife with corruption:

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/we-found-only-one-third-published-psychology-research-reliable-now-what
http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/06/study-claims-28-billion-year-spent-irreproducible-biomedical-research
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685008/
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/06/study-claims-1-in-4-cancer-research-papers-contains-faked-data/


GinyuTokusentai
 

Delicieuxz
Sep 23 2015, 02:51 AM
Gearfried
Sep 2 2015, 06:23 PM
I think science is like a dogma religion. true science is supposed to always question and test theories.



I agree with this. Science is BS, and is whatever the observer wants it to be. The only one constant of science is that everything which is considered as a fact today will later be replaced with a different fact. Science has become a religion, and it has become dogma.

The Problem with Willed-Determination & Observation Being Authority
A Scientific Fact

Things like Mathematics, Chemistry, and Physics are not science, as there is no degree of test / observation within them - they simply are. Though they may be studied through the Scientific Method, that studying has not resulted in the knowing of the truth of them, and as I said, the only one constant of science is that everything which is considered as a fact today will later be replaced with a different fact - which means that everything put forth as a scientific fact is already False, just like every previous scientific fact was before it got replaced with a newer one - yet until one gets replaced, many people act as if it was true.


Also, science is rife with corruption:

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/we-found-only-one-third-published-psychology-research-reliable-now-what
http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/06/study-claims-28-billion-year-spent-irreproducible-biomedical-research
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685008/
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/06/study-claims-1-in-4-cancer-research-papers-contains-faked-data/
There's a problem with your post.
If we aren't supposed to respond to each other that's okay, I'll make a thread for it.
First you start to say that all facts within science change.
That's already false, but let's say It's true, how can you continue to call science a dogma if it changes its stance after evidence is presented? That's the opposite of a dogma.

Also, no degree of test or observation within physics, chemistry and maths?
Sure there is, you can't see it but that doesn't mean you can't do tests or make observations. Observations aren't always direct.

You also keep saying that EVERY fact we know today will be refuted in the future.
That's just ridiculous. SOME facts will be changed in the future after evidence is presented. But that's what makes science so great! We look at evidence and draw the most likely conclusion, it's the opposite of a dogma!
Every scientific fact has the potential to be refuted, but only few actually will be refuted.

Oh and I still don't get why people just post links and think they're making a point.
I can give 5 links of religious terrorism, 5 links of studies that show growing up with religion is bad, 5 links of Christian pedophilia and 5 links of pro science articles for every 1 link you gave against science.

Science is not a belief system, it is a method of thinking, a method of obtaining knowledge, you need to realize that.
By criticizing science as a whole you are not being a skeptic, you're being ignorant on purpose.
Edited by Delicieuxz, Sep 23 2015, 07:17 AM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Delicieuxz
Member Avatar


GinyuTokusentai
 

There's a problem with your post.
If we aren't supposed to respond to each other that's okay, I'll make a thread for it.
First you start to say that all facts within science change.
That's already false, but let's say It's true, how can you continue to call science a dogma if it changes its stance after evidence is presented? That's the opposite of a dogma.

Also, no degree of test or observation within physics, chemistry and maths?
Sure there is, you can't see it but that doesn't mean you can't do tests or make observations. Observations aren't always direct.

You also keep saying that EVERY fact we know today will be refuted in the future.
That's just ridiculous. SOME facts will be changed in the future after evidence is presented. But that's what makes science so great! We look at evidence and draw the most likely conclusion, it's the opposite of a dogma!
Every scientific fact has the potential to be refuted, but only few actually will be refuted.

Oh and I still don't get why people just post links and think they're making a point.
I can give 5 links of religious terrorism, 5 links of studies that show growing up with religion is bad, 5 links of Christian pedophilia and 5 links of pro science articles for every 1 link you gave against science.

Science is not a belief system, it is a method of thinking, a method of obtaining knowledge, you need to realize that.
By criticizing science as a whole you are not being a skeptic, you're being ignorant on purpose.



>> how can you continue to call science a dogma if it changes it stance after evidence is presented? That's the opposite of a dogma.

People have dogmas, and science is dogma to many people. That science's body of information changes does not mean it is not dogma to many people.


>> First you start to say that all facts within science change. That's already false

All facts within science change, and have changed, sometimes many times. From the big bang, to black holes, to what effect materials have upon others (especially in health study), to the relationship of subatomic particles.


>> But that's what makes science so great! We look at evidence and draw the most likely conclusion, it's the opposite of a dogma!

Looking at things is not the only way to decipher reality, and observation is a subjective and fallible sense - which is why I've said that that science, which is the body of information produced through engagement of the scientific method, is BS. There are other ways to understand information: Considering is one. Considering cannot be done on the information input into observation, because observation is a break in the information and the observer, and injects a falsehood into the conclusion - because a conclusion upon observation can only be made through enacting a determination, which itself is an imposed falsification, which says 'these considerations, but not these others', and so is a reduction of the truth. Truth cannot come to be known by making determinations upon observation, and because science is only the body of information produced through the scientific method, science cannot produce truthful information.

Calling things beyond the scientific method science is offensive to the truth, and is like when somebody asks a person "why is..." and the person responds "because, God". Mathematics, the actual harmonizing of numbers, was not created by science, but existed before any notion of science. It doesn't receive influence from test / observation cycles, and any outside interference can only falsify a mathematical statement. It exists, and is. It acts as a truth, and receives no benefit from a person's observation or determination-making upon it. The same applies to the truth of chemical interactions - the system by which they work exists, and though it can be used by people, the system itself is not science, and bears no heed to test, observation, or determinations. And presumably so with physics.

So these things can be used, and they're used in scientific pursuit, but they are not themselves science, and with or without science, or people practising science, these things exist, and can be engaged through different means than science. So I find it ignorant when people refer to these things as science - they came before, and they exist regardless of science.


>> that's what makes science so great! We look at evidence and draw the most likely conclusion

Everybody draws conclusions from what is most evident to them. I don't think that this is anything particular to science. The basis of Christianity are the teachings of Jesus Christ, who said to test his words to see if they are true. So if you consider Jesus's teachings as religion (which I don't think are the same), then what is so great about science is maybe also what is so great about religion. The philosophy to carefully examine is not belonging to science.

It is supporting that science is a dogma (to many) in that things which are parts of every person's life, and which exist apart from science, are regularly taken to be defining aspects of science - such as pursuing the gaining of knowledge of the truth. Science is only the pursuit through one particular mean, that of test / observation, and making determinations on what's observed to form a conclusion. When people claim that everything is science, they've jumped the shark, and are showing that there is not an integrity to the concept of science, and that "Science" is just an abstract sentiment to them.


>> Also, no degree of test or observation within physics, chemistry and maths?

There isn't. People make observations on them, but there is no test / observation happening within them. Test and observation are nothing to the truth, and inject falsehood into the understanding of these things.

Mathematics, chemistry, and physics all work on the following movement: A series of considerations flow, one into the next, each following gaining the qualities of the previous, until they experience their resolution, and harmonize into one. Within the resulting one is contained all the considerations that substantiated the results. This is also the movement that is created by considering, and a person practising the scientific method may or may not employ considering in their work (again, the scientific method is making determinations based off of observation, which is a separate means than considering details - and any observation, or a determination, falsifies considering), and every instance of observation introduces a falsehood into the subject.


>> Science is not a belief system, it is a method of thinking, you need to realize that.

Science is a belief to many.

Also, its method of thinking, through cycles of test / observation, produces falsehoods - and so the scientific method is not a truth, as anything less than True is False. Therefore science evaluates as False, as a method to discern the truth.


>> Oh and I still don't get why people just post links and think they're making a point. I can give 5 links of religious terrorism

Perhaps you'd make a point by doing so. The last collection of links I provided came following the statement that science is rife with corruption. The links demonstrate that this is the case, showing that whole industries based in science are primarily fraudulent - such as psychology, and that there is significant corruption in other areas. The claim I stated, together with the links, make the point, not just the links on their own.


>> I can give 5 links of religious terrorism, 5 links of studies that show growing up with religion is bad, 5 links of Christian pedophilia and 5 links of pro science articles for every 1 link youngave against science.

Those links would be based in scientific expression, and they would be refuted 1:1, maybe more, with other scientific research that says otherwise. Every research study in science has another which says different. And religion is not the antithesis of science, so that argument would not be in defence of science vs religion.

And I don't consider religion to be important to the discussion of science. Science is not Truth, just like Religion is not God. Both God and Truth mean the same thing: That which is, apart from which there is no other. Science and Religion are institutions, doctrines. Doctrines are methods of practice, and are not themselves truth.
Edited by Delicieuxz, Sep 23 2015, 07:51 AM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Buuberries
Member Avatar
No

I feel like people are trolling whenever they talk about this because it's always full of misinformation and illogical thinking, but I'll humour you anyway.

Quote:
 
I agree with this. Science is BS, and is whatever the observer wants it to be. The only one constant of science is that everything which is considered as a fact today will later be replaced with a different fact. Science has become a religion, and it has become dogma.
Science isn't bulls***; people are bulls***. Just because a researcher or group of researchers decide to manipulate data, misrepresent it, or, if we want to bring in conspiracy theories, have their own agenda, that still doesn't mean that science is bulls***. Science is just a method of observing and trying to explain various phenomena. Something is either scientific or it's not (i.e., pseudoscience). There isn't a "science that's a dogma" and "true science". When you're talking about science, you're talking about that "true science" you're referring to. Anything else that doesn't follow the scientific method isn't scientific.

Quote:
 
Things like Mathematics, Chemistry, and Physics are not science, as there is no degree of test / observation within them - they simply are. Though they may be studied through the Scientific Method, that studying has not resulted in the knowing of the truth of them, and as I said, the only one constant of science is that everything which is considered as a fact today will later be replaced with a different fact - which means that everything put forth as a scientific fact is already False, just like every previous scientific fact was before it got replaced with a newer one - yet until one gets replaced, many people act as if it was true.
Congratulations -- that's what the scientific method is. Information changes, and we revise or completely scrap theories that don't hold up to new findings. Oh and just a sidenote: just because new information might be found in the future doesn't mean that current knowledge is necessarily false. It just means we can further narrow our understanding.

That's what seperates science from dogma.

close thread pls


tl;dr your post is a strawman argument.
Edited by Buuberries, Sep 23 2015, 03:27 PM.
¯\(°_o)/¯
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpeedoTrunks
Default Avatar


Thank you Buu, I had like a 7 page thesis for this written up, to explain exactly why it was incorrect but I just couldn't be bothered to post it in the end.

This was me reading he first post:
Spoiler: click to toggle
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Delicieuxz
Member Avatar


Buuberries
Sep 23 2015, 03:20 PM
I feel like people are trolling whenever they talk about this because it's always full of misinformation and illogical thinking, but I'll humour you anyway.

Quote:
 
I agree with this. Science is BS, and is whatever the observer wants it to be. The only one constant of science is that everything which is considered as a fact today will later be replaced with a different fact. Science has become a religion, and it has become dogma.
Science isn't bulls***; people are bulls***. Just because a researcher or group of researchers decide to manipulate data, misrepresent it, or, if we want to bring in conspiracy theories, have their own agenda, that still doesn't mean that science is bulls***. Science is just a method of observing and trying to explain various phenomena. Something is either scientific or it's not (i.e., pseudoscience). There isn't a "science that's a dogma" and "true science". When you're talking about science, you're talking about that "true science" you're referring to. Anything else that doesn't follow the scientific method isn't scientific.

Quote:
 
Things like Mathematics, Chemistry, and Physics are not science, as there is no degree of test / observation within them - they simply are. Though they may be studied through the Scientific Method, that studying has not resulted in the knowing of the truth of them, and as I said, the only one constant of science is that everything which is considered as a fact today will later be replaced with a different fact - which means that everything put forth as a scientific fact is already False, just like every previous scientific fact was before it got replaced with a newer one - yet until one gets replaced, many people act as if it was true.
Congratulations -- that's what the scientific method is. Information changes, and we revise or completely scrap theories that don't hold up to new findings. Oh and just a sidenote: just because new information might be found in the future doesn't mean that current knowledge is necessarily false. It just means we can further narrow our understanding.

That's what seperates science from dogma.

close thread pls


tl;dr your post is a strawman argument.
I could start my response with the line "I feel like people are trolling whenever they talk about this because it's always full of misinformation and illogical thinking, but I'll humour you anyway,"

But instead I'll start with this:

I understand that the issue is sensitive to some, as they've invested lots of sentiment into the ideals of what science is, but my statements really do not represent a strawman, as I presented that the sentiments which people have invested into the concept of science as being beyond the substantiated identity of science before I detailed why the scientific method is a fallible means for truth realization - and then I further used people's added attached sentiments to the concept of science to show that it is indeed a dogma to many people.


Quote:
 
Congratulations -- that's what the scientific method is. Information changes, and we revise or completely scrap theories that don't hold up to new findings. Oh and just a sidenote: just because new information might be found in the future doesn't mean that current knowledge is necessarily false. It just means we can further narrow our understanding.

You're missing the point that a thing, be it a method or religion or idea, is not a dogma unless people hold it to be one by having an unchallengeable and unquestionable belief regarding it. Your opening line of "I feel like people are trolling whenever they talk about this because it's always full of misinformation and illogical thinking, but I'll humour you anyway" actually suggests that science already is a dogma to you.

When you say that information changes, and the scientific method allows for this, and therefore the scientific method is not dogma, you're mis-attributing the identification of where the dogma would present. The dogma in this case is not regarding the information that changed, but regarding the belief in the scientific method as a means to arrive at the truth (including with any changes it imparts on subject information), and the information upon which it is applied. The information upon which it is applied changes, but the scientific method itself does not.


Science / scientific method (remains constant) ---gets applied to---> subject information (changes)


The theory of science maintains that anything less than True is False, and that one bit of false information in a theory makes the whole theory fail. Now, if there is one bit of the scientific method which is found to be a falsehood, then the whole theory of the scientific method itself is rendered a failure.

The scientific method entertains an observer's determinations upon a subject matter and allows them to be accepted to form scientific facts.

A person's observation introduces a level of abstraction into the subject matter - and each level of abstraction puts further distance between the truth of the subject and the person studying it. And a determination is a falsehood by nature, which reduces considerations. It is impossible for the outcome after both to contain the truth - which is why scientific information requires constant re-adjusting - there's never been found a foundation of truth upon which to build all subsequent knowledge.

Secondly, the scientific method allows for the evidence to be taken into account. So are there instances of the scientific method not producing a certain truth? Actually, there aren't any instances of the scientific method producing a certain truth - everything it produces is considered a scientific fact, and they've all been changed before, and will change again.

As the theory of science maintains that even one falsehood in a body of information renders the whole thing false, the theory of science as a reliable means to produce truthful knowledge, fails, by science's own requirements and measurements.



No matter how it makes someone feel, the scientific method, and science, itself (not just the people using it), is highly fallible, and not an accurate means to ascertain truth. And the reaction of people who don't like this, because it runs contrary to the sentiments they've associated with the belief in science as trustworthy and reliable, is also indication of having a dogmatic belief in the concept of science.

Science doesn't change - the information it's conducted upon changes. If science / the scientific method itself changes, then it has no real meaning. Saying that science is a dogma to many people does not mean that the subjects which science is conducted upon is dogma, but that science, the belief in its method as a reliable means to ascertain truth, is a dogma to many people.

If it isn't, then good. There should be no trouble with my challenging its reliability, as people will not have any sentimental attachment to the concept of it, and can clearly acknowledge its flaws, and change their opinions regarding science. But that's not what I'm seeing in this thread.


Also, your closing line of "close thread pls" loudly suggests that you personally hold dogmatic belief regarding science, as it is precisely the act of resisting challenging and questioning.
Edited by Delicieuxz, Sep 24 2015, 01:44 AM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Delicieuxz
Member Avatar


SpeedoTrunks
Sep 23 2015, 05:09 PM
Thank you Buu, I had like a 7 page thesis for this written up, to explain exactly why it was incorrect but I just couldn't be bothered to post it in the end.

This was me reading he first post:
Spoiler: click to toggle
7 pages would have been a whole lot of bothering to have, in the end, not bothered with posting it. However, if Blueberries' post satisfied your need to bother with it, then it seems to be logical to consider that your arguments would have been refuted by the same analysis I gave that refuted Blueberries' assertions to my earlier posts.
Edited by Delicieuxz, Sep 24 2015, 01:41 AM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zoom
Member Avatar


Quote:
 
Science is BS, and is whatever the observer wants it to be.


What does this mean, "science is whatever the observer wants it to be"? I don't understand what you mean by that.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Delicieuxz
Member Avatar


SSj4 Gotenks
Sep 24 2015, 01:45 AM
Quote:
 
Science is BS, and is whatever the observer wants it to be.


What does this mean, "science is whatever the observer wants it to be"? I don't understand what you mean by that.
It was a mildly flippant way of saying that the outcome of any scientific study is essentially a personal expression of the individual who makes the conclusions, as observation is subjective. I said it also with recognition that, due to science's involvement of personal perception, there is always room for abuse and error in any scientific conclusion - that room for error itself being a flaw of the scientific method, and what separates the scientific method from truth, as there is no error in the truth. And that room for error and abuse is capitalized upon regularly, by governments, researchers, academics, grant providers, journalists... that the room for manipulation and biased conclusions exist is indeed a flaw in the scientific method itself - just as the scientific method maintains that room for error and abuse in a scientific theory is a flaw in the theory.

I also said it through the experience of witnessing through many years that just about everything that continues to be researched is revised - not in subtle ways, such as fine-editing, but in completely previous-conclusion-and-fact refuting replacement. There is probably literally, nothing about scientific data that does not get completely changed over - and not by building upon previous research (which would reinforce at least parts of the previous research), but by someone else coming along and claiming that the previous was completely wrong, in light of a different reading.
Edited by Delicieuxz, Sep 24 2015, 02:02 AM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zoom
Member Avatar


The device that your using to communicate with us is called a computer and internet. Without science there's no way we can communicate the way we do. So how can science be BS when it works?
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
EMIYA
Member Avatar
"I am the bone of my sword."

You know what the difference between a dogma and science is?

A dogma doesn't change. It is treated as incontrovertibly true.

Science by its nature is intended to be questioned, changed and adapted. In fact something which neither true nor false cannot be a science. There's a reason we separate the science from the philosophy.

When you say science is BS you clearly understand nothing of what science is.

You know why? Because science isn't about being right or wrong or what's good or bad. It's about taking something and doing your best through a select means of proven methods to explain it and being able to change or adapt those changes when new information arrives. That's not bulls***, that's just a simple way of trying to figure something out using a time tested and supportive method.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Delicieuxz
Member Avatar


SSj4 Gotenks
Sep 24 2015, 02:04 AM
The device that your using to communicate with us is called a computer and internet. Without science there's no way we can communicate the way we do. So how can science be BS when it works?
Technology is not an example of science. It bears no recognition of the scientific method, or or test / observation. It runs on the principle of transistors, which is True vs False. It corresponds to the movement I described as considering:

Quote:
 
science, which is the body of information produced through engagement of the scientific method, is BS. There are other ways to understand information: Considering is one. Considering cannot be done on the information input into observation, because observation is a break in the information and the observer, and injects a falsehood into the conclusion - because a conclusion upon observation can only be made through enacting a determination, which itself is an imposed falsification, which says 'these considerations, but not these others', and so is a reduction of the truth.

...

A series of considerations flow, one into the next, each following gaining the qualities of the previous, until they experience their resolution, and harmonize into one. Within the resulting one is contained all the considerations that substantiated the results. This is also the movement that is created by considering, and a person practising the scientific method may or may not employ considering in their work (again, the scientific method is making determinations based off of observation, which is a separate means than considering details - and any observation, or a determination, falsifies considering), and every instance of observation introduces a falsehood into the subject.


That movement of considering is the same one the human brain runs on, develops by, and works through. The human brain existed before science.

It is impossible for science to be the very conduct of True vs False, when science itself, and the methods of science, are to be evaluated by True vs False, and when True vs False existed before science, and exists apart from science. Technology can be used in science, but technology is not science, and operates by none of the principles or methodology of science.
Edited by Delicieuxz, Sep 24 2015, 03:09 AM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Delicieuxz
Member Avatar


Dark Matter
Sep 24 2015, 02:11 AM
You know what the difference between a dogma and science is?

A dogma doesn't change. It is treated as incontrovertibly true.

Science by its nature is intended to be questioned, changed and adapted. In fact something which neither true nor false cannot be a science. There's a reason we separate the science from the philosophy.

When you say science is BS you clearly understand nothing of what science is.

You know why? Because science isn't about being right or wrong or what's good or bad. It's about taking something and doing your best through a select means of proven methods to explain it and being able to change or adapt those changes when new information arrives. That's not bulls***, that's just a simple way of trying to figure something out using a time tested and supportive method.


You must not have read any, or most of my previous post, because it fully addressed the contention of how science is dogma, to many people: http://dbzf.co.uk/single/?p=9217702&t=8551092


>> Because science isn't about being right or wrong or what's good or bad. It's about taking something and doing your best

That's not science, that's sentiment, which is indicative of passively-working dogma. Also, you just said this: "In fact something which neither true nor false cannot be a science"


>> through a select means of proven methods to explain it and being able to change or adapt those changes when new information arrives

Again, it appears as though you didn't read any of my previous post, because I addressed the scientific method's unprovenness: http://dbzf.co.uk/single/?p=9217702&t=8551092


I have presented an articulated understanding of science and its methodology. So when you say that I don't understand science, and back that statement with a sentiment-laden nostalgia for the notion of science, that claim of yours looks like protection of a dogma to me, and is regardless a weaker, less technical presentation of understanding for what science is, than what I've presented.

Science is not the truth. Science attempts to discover truth. When science starts to be defended by sentiments, and claims of integrity of intent conflating science with ambiguous rightfulness, then science is just being excused as being whatever eventually happens to be truth. That definition of science is without integrity, and is not fact-based. And it is failed by virtue that science attempts to discover truth, and therefore is not the truth itself.
Edited by Delicieuxz, Sep 24 2015, 03:34 AM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Buuberries
Member Avatar
No

If we're to get technical, it's almost impossible for us to know with 100% certainty what the truth is about our universe. Science gives us close approximations of the truth; people shouldn't claim that we know what the truth is about our universe because we don't.

And the scientific method doesn't change? This is what makes me think even more that you're either a troll or you don't know what you're talking about. Read up on the history of the scientific method. It has changed drastically over the centuries, so I don't know why you are saying that the scientific method remains the same.

Also you are completely contradicting yourself when you talk about your alternate method of considering. Considering is way more subjective than observation.

And nice assumption about how I take science as a dogma, but another conclusion you could've come up with is that misinformation and pseudointellectuals annoy me, so I feel like I need to at least tell them they're wrong and why -- that's why I said close thread pls. Maybe you aren't a troll, but I've still come across the same thing at least two dozen times and the person who says it typically knows very little about how science works in the first place.

Challege and question everything, sure -- I love telling people to do that offline -- but at least know what it is you are questioning.
Edited by Buuberries, Sep 24 2015, 08:55 AM.
¯\(°_o)/¯
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpeedoTrunks
Default Avatar


Delicieuxz
Sep 24 2015, 01:39 AM
7 pages would have been a whole lot of bothering to have, in the end, not bothered with posting it. However, if Blueberries' post satisfied your need to bother with it, then it seems to be logical to consider that your arguments would have been refuted by the same analysis I gave that refuted Blueberries' assertions to my earlier posts.
And you wonder why people think your trolling :rofl:

The point is , for me at least, this:

Science - The study of ALL things, to try and understand them. Yes, we apply the theory that has the most constant, if not ALL, the results, but its not subjective. IE we dont say "I'll study this until I prove X". We would say "Wow this so far validates the theory of X that I first had, but opens doors to other possibilities for Y and Z. I'll keep looking further until I can fully understand HOW and WHY this works a certain way"

Over the years, some answers have been wrong, in fact VERY wrong, but that's the way it works. Other people will look at something and keep delving until the way something works is found, and not just somebody in particular's idea about it. Due to this many theorems are considered by many to be the "most likely" way something works, the forces of the universe for example (gravity, magnetism etc) because we have tons and tons of supporting evidence to back that up.

I really could go on and on, but its not like an institution made for controlling the masses like religion ultimately was/is.

On the other hand:

Religion - "Its written in a book somewhere, and it must be true, despite NOTHING to back up anything in said religious text. Also, don't question ANY of it. " Now, whether that comes from individual people or the head of the religion, take your pick, but that's about it.
Edited by SpeedoTrunks, Sep 24 2015, 04:15 PM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
EMIYA
Member Avatar
"I am the bone of my sword."

Honestly, I think Richard Dawkins put it best.

Quote:
 
"Science. It works b***s."
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
0 users reading this topic
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Designed by McKee91