desert dude
Well-Known Member
Bullshit. Tiresome bullshit.
Why don't Republican officials accept science? 3 examples..
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Bullshit. Tiresome bullshit.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
thats not a fact i am aware of, the only person i ever heard make that claim was zacharias sitchin, and he is wellll.... he's on Coast To Coast AM with Art bell.
even if true, the babylonians are NOT the dogons, and the dogons did NOT know that sirius was a binary system, some anthropologists accidentally gave them biased and leading questions and interpreted their answers as being derived from supernatural sources.
sometimes anthropologists gonna anthropo-fuckup. if science was perfect and had all the answers we would call it religion.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Anyone who claims that a fundamental agreement with scientific principles in 2012 has nothing to do with "fixing this country" is hard pressed to comprehend the issues in their entirety. Without a firm grounding in the concepts of science, one cannot guide this country to resolution.
Your statement a bout Roe is misguided considering the numberr of state and federal attempts to legislate personhood. The right does not wish to award "choice" to women but remove it in any way possible, from waiting periods to manditory vaginal ultrasound mandates. I think it is interesting that you opt to go the way of most of those on the right to obscure the true issue.
Romney "of course we don't want employers to determine if a woman can use contraceptives" - is just such a dodge, it is just such an effort to trick women as to the true nature of his, and his party's actual intent.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Science can and has been wrong. Anyone who thinks otherwise should read Charles Fort's,The Book of the Damned,is all about excluded data.Science only deals in trends and doesn't actively pursue findings which go againt it and actually mock them instead.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
As I mentioned before, he's said it's up to the SC, whom he would most likely appoint during his administration. Do you think he would appoint liberal justices who would uphold Roe v. Wade or conservative justices who would overturn it?
He himself disagrees with the ruling and has said so in a few interviews.
Could you be specific and cite a few examples?
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
You apparently have never taken the time to understand the very subject you criticize. No one here has said science is always right. You have created a strawman.
Science thrives on new ideas and ways of thinking. Science never tries to prove itself right, but rather rigorously tries to prove itself wrong. When science does discover a mistake, it has no problem admitting it and changing it's view. This is the only productive attitude that can be had in a world where new evidence is constantly being discovered.
Science discriminates against only that which does not follow the process. This is not mocking, it is quality control.
Science is a systematic method of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results. Where do you find fault in that?
"Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries." - Carl Sagan
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Padwan,
If you accept:humans not causing climate change, cold fusion, government requires milk and other animal products to collect food stamp payments, when does blue become magenta, do big pharma drugs work or are they constructed to make you use others.
If you accept:humans not causing climate change, cold fusion, government requires milk and other animal products to collect food stamp payments, when does blue become magenta, do big pharma drugs work or are they constructed to make you use others.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
There are folks who, without question, treat scientific findings like religion. They are just as dangerous as any religious zealot.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Heisenberg,
Look up the Ether as a medium of energy wave travel.It's utter bullshit but at one time was taught to engineers in college.If a student challenged it,that student was mocked.These are trends which scientists lose careers over to defeat.
Look up the Ether as a medium of energy wave travel.It's utter bullshit but at one time was taught to engineers in college.If a student challenged it,that student was mocked.These are trends which scientists lose careers over to defeat.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
OG,
I see you're a student of Charles Fort.
I see you're a student of Charles Fort.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Precisely no. This is the Lamarckian counterproposal to Darwin, and it has failed every test. Since the Lamarckian idea appeals to many of us intuitively ... it's been subject to much test. cn
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
I'm not actually, but I'm curious.
I'm just a guy with an inherently skeptical brain, about everything. I've also seen how money and politics has influenced science.
I'm just a guy with an inherently skeptical brain, about everything. I've also seen how money and politics has influenced science.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
You are still fighting a strawman. No one has said science gets everything right the first time and then stops. Science is a self correcting process. This as opposed to creationism, which still thinks the world is a few thousand years old despite great evidence to the contrary.
You seem to have the attitude that if one part of science is found to be mistaken, then all answers must be thrown out. That is how religion works, not science. Science is a process, a methodology, not a knowledge base.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Hostile yet classic shift of burden of proof. You are unable to explain yourself, so you point to Google in some illusion of answering the challenge. This seems strange as you say you have spent years researching, yet you can't be bothered to cite an example.
It seems you have the very attitude you criticize science for. When you are challenged, you mock and say "fuck yourself"
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What changed from when it was taught to now?
If it's no longer taught, why weren't those scientists who exposed it laughed out of their respective fields of study?
Why do you hold science as a whole accountable for mistakes? Do you feel there is something wrong with Heis' description of it;
"Science is a systematic method of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results. Where do you find fault in that?"
If it's no longer taught, why weren't those scientists who exposed it laughed out of their respective fields of study?
Why do you hold science as a whole accountable for mistakes? Do you feel there is something wrong with Heis' description of it;
"Science is a systematic method of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results. Where do you find fault in that?"
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Bear,Some things previously thought to be learned are actually epigenetic and can activate dormant genes.These expressions may never have ever activated before.Evolution isn't cut and dry as once thought.Science tries to make your average person think so.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I have read that epigenetics can be explained by phenotypic plasticity, which fits in with the rest of the darwinian edifice. i see no reason to dust off Lamarck's skeleton.
Also, I am a but bothered by your invocation of comets as a source of some recent pathogens. I have seen no credible work along those lines. I ask you to consider that wanting a theory to be wrong exerts a strong subconscious bias to one's fair evaluation of it. cn
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Then why do scientists get fired to this day for questioning human's role in climate change or for making commentary about cold fusion? That sounds like what religion does. What happened to science being about questioning?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
That is quite correct. However I wonder about its relevancy. Imo a bigger danger comes from those who treat selected scientific findings as immovable dogma. cn
Similar threads
