Science is close-minded

[InfiniteNow]

Another useful video which helps with the topic at hand.

Enjoy. :)

 

 

YouTube - 10 - The Scientific Method Made Easy http://youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

[Mike C]

I could not agree with that sentiment more!

Cheers, mate.

All the best. :)

 

These tiny effects could result from flying through the Earths magnetic fields

since the effects do not match.

 

Such tiny changes are inconsequencial regarding cosmology IMO.

 

Mike C

[InfiniteNow]

These tiny effects could result from flying through the Earths magnetic fields

 

Let's see you prove it, instead of simply asserting it.

[Mike C]

Let's see you prove it, instead of simply asserting it.

 

Can you explain what effect this time variance has on the universe?

 

I just do not see how this would effect the current workings of the universe.

 

In othr words, whats the point of these tiny abberations?

 

Mike C

[modest]

These tiny effects could result from flying through the Earths magnetic fields

since the effects do not match.

 

Such tiny changes are inconsequencial regarding cosmology IMO.

 

Mike C

 

Can you please give a source supporting your claim that experiments measuring time dilation are an effect of Earth's magnetic field.

 

-modest

[alexander]

Make things better for others to the degree that you can.

Thank's for the advise, and don't take me wrong, i'm not depressed, i've been in this dissapointed about society as a whole, mood for many years now, but it doesn't mean that i don't do anything, i have said before, somewhere on these forums, i have a few goals in life, and none of them will ever be accomplished, simply due to the fact that they are non-accomplishable. First one is to never stop learning. I love learning, the more i learn, the more i want to learn, i find myself being pulled in so many directions of things i'd like to know, but i am rather time-constricted, so i end up having to make a choice at some point... Second is i try to educate others. And generally, the smarter the person i educate, the more satisfaction i get out of it, if i get someone who knows a lot about something, something they did not know, then my day was not spent for nothing. My big reason for sticking around here... Lastly, i live to make someone's life better, it doesn't matter who's life either, as long as they are good people, if i can help, i tend to at least try...

 

So in reply, i stride for that, James, it doesn't stop me from looking at humanity from a third perspective, it doesn't stop my frustration with the social structure, or most people's raison d'etre, so to speak...

 

But it's still off topic, if you want, i'll discuss this at greater length with you somewhere in philosophy, just PM me the link, plz :P

 

Influence dollars can control the content. This is a form of censorship.

Influence dollars is a way to censor "n" scientist's research direction, it's not a way to "hijack" science...

 

Once again, what do influence dollars do? They will shift the attention of the top-paid scientists in whichever field, to a subject that was not the object of view prior. Fistly this will generally not stop their devotion to their research prior to the influence, generally speaking. Secondly, more money means the more they will spend on trying to do the science, right.

 

This in no way hijacks's someone's thought, it may hijack "n"s person's attention, for some time, but it does not move the direction of "scientific thought" in any direction in the long run.

 

Science is amenable to change.

:)

 

Scientist like this are the keeper’s of science as the rational high ground by pointing out the difference between science and faith, but also by not directly attacking religions.

 

Here's my problem with this thread already. How come, every thread about science, turns into a thread where science is put up against religion. I mean honestly, i ask everyone who picks fights with religious folk, do we seriously have nothing better to do then bash religion? (and by we, i mean scientists, and i don't quite think i make the grade)

 

While I do not agree with much you say I have to admit this is true, very much true.

but do you agree with his wording of that prior to that post, do you think that science can be hijacked (in all seriousness of that word) by influence dollars?

 

Einstein's theory

you said it yourselves, its a Theory, that word implies that science thinks that it may not be true, and hey if James comes up with a theory that better describes the phenomena that Einstein described, and can be used to more accurately predict the outcome of the same events, then we may very well have a Putnam theory of relativity... Wait, James, do you believe in relativistic reference frames?

You see, science is a beleifistic (meaning beleif-based) as religion is, it's basically philosophy mixed with high-level math, the big difference is that science is prone to constant change in what people believe in, mostly nothing is set in stone, only the constants.... and science sometimes follows strict logic rules.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Alexander; Here's my problem with this thread already. How come, every thread about science, turns into a thread where science is put up against religion. I mean honestly, i ask everyone who picks fights with religious folk, do we seriously have nothing better to do then bash religion? (and by we, i mean scientists, and i don't quite think i make the grade)

:):P

I have noticed that I can start a thread or post on an existing thread that deals with aspects evolution theory I find I am enviably and inextricably drawn into a creationist debate, and not usually by a creationists mind you. W.T.F. Science is fascinating, studying religion I also find interesting but they are two separate paradigms. The creationist debate is mental masturbation. It produces nothing and is unfulfilling futile exercise.

[Moontanman]

but do you agree with his wording of that prior to that post, do you think that science can be hijacked (in all seriousness of that word) by influence dollars?

 

NO I said that people can be influenced by money to interpret science in a particular way. ideally science (if done correctly) should show a reproducible result no matter who is doing the experiment. How that result is presented is what can be influenced by money.

[REASON]

I have noticed that I can start a thread or post on an existing thread that deals with aspects evolution theory I find I am enviably and inextricably drawn into a creationist debate, and not usually by a creationists mind you. W.T.F. Science is fascinating, studying religion I also find interesting but they are two separate paradigms. The creationist debate is mental masturbation. It produces nothing and is unfulfilling futile exercise.

 

What aspects of evolutionary theory that you are promoting do you think might be leading the discussion toward a creationist debate?

 

Could it be the teleological assertion of an inherent drive toward complexity in nature?

 

You've brought those discussions on yourself, T-bird. But I don't think it's worth complaining about. I think they've been useful and informative discussions.

 

Here's my problem with this thread already. How come, every thread about science, turns into a thread where science is put up against religion. I mean honestly, i ask everyone who picks fights with religious folk, do we seriously have nothing better to do then bash religion? (and by we, i mean scientists, and i don't quite think i make the grade)

 

You know, this hasn't really been my experience here. It appears to me that a lot of people with religious assertions to make feel the need to come here to make them, as though they need to prove something to science oriented people. Is there anyone who is luring religious folk to come here to be drawn into a fight? How credible is the information to be found here if unsupported assertions can go unchallenged?

 

In the process of maintaining scientific integrity at a science website, it is necessary by default to refute unscientific notions, and to challenge philosophies that are based in superstition and myth. These refutations can become heated when people continue to dump their false assertions all over these threads after their claims have been shown to be false. I imagine that if it weren't for those who were continually willing to challenge false claims, these fora would be littered with absurdity.

 

Personally, I don't recommend that there be a let up on those who know no better than to promote their conjecture and faithfull thinking here at Hypography.

[Moontanman]

I'll make a deal with all the creationists and ID'ers and anyone else who has a religious axe to grind, if they will stay away from science posts I'll stay out of the theology section. I am tired of every time there is a science thread some one seems to think it a perfect time to 'educate' everyone on the merits of some BS religious idea. I hate to argue religion or politics with anyone. It a useless exercise. The religious have no desire to learn science, no idea of what science is or any desire to learn anything. All they are looking for is a platform to spew BS at anyone who will sit still for them. :naughty:

[Thunderbird]

What aspects of evolutionary theory that you are promoting do you think might be leading the discussion toward a creationist debate?Could it be the teleological assertion of an inherent drive toward complexity in nature?

 

You've brought those discussions on yourself, T-bird. But I don't think it's worth complaining about. I think they've been useful and informative discussions.

 

 

 

You know, this hasn't really been my experience here. It appears to me that a lot of people with religious assertions to make feel the need to come here to make them, as though they need to prove something to science oriented people. Is there anyone who is luring religious folk to come here to be drawn into a fight? How credible is the information to be found here if unsupported assertions can go unchallenged?

 

In the process of maintaining scientific integrity at a science website, it is necessary by default to refute unscientific notions, and to challenge philosophies that are based in superstition and myth. These refutations can become heated when people continue to dump their false assertions all over these threads after their claims have been shown to be false. I imagine that if it weren't for those who were continually willing to challenge false claims, these fora would be littered with absurdity.

 

Personally, I don't recommend that there be a let up on those who know no better than to promote their conjecture and faithfull thinking here at Hypography.

None, that's always been my point. I do not have any intention of promoting I.D. Complexity is not I.D. But some in ID have used it to promote ID some on this forum do not understand that complexity is not about ID, therefore the confusion is not on my part. I was studying complexity long before ID began to be misused it as a wedge issue which is not my intent, but others. Read Stuart Kauffman he applies complexity to evolution properly.

[REASON]

None, that's always been my point. I do not have any intention of promoting I.D. Complexity is not I.D. But some in ID have used it to promote ID some on this forum do not understand that complexity is not about ID, therefore the confusion is not on my part. I was studying complexity long before ID began to be misused it as a wedge issue which is not my intent, but others. Read Stuart Kauffman he applies complexity to evolution properly.

 

I apologize, T-bird. I don't want to appear to be implying that you have promoted I.D. I will attest that you have continually denied Intelligent Design or any other form of Creationism.

 

What I meant was that you have suggested, I believe, that there are inherent qualities in nature that lend themselves toward increasing complexity, which has been challenged as teleological putting you in the position of defending youself. Even Eclogite acknowledged that simply dismissing something as teleological was scientifically closed-minded, if I recall correctly.

 

I think in some of those discussions that you provided some very valuable information to consider. I was trying to clarify why some of the discussions you were involved in regarding evolution found their way toward a debate about creationism.

 

I admit that there are some itchy trigger fingers when it comes to creationists around here. I tend to think that's because of the shear number of posters over the years that have come here to proselytize.

[alexander]

Is there anyone who is luring religious folk to come here to be drawn into a fight?

I think you took it a bit too literally, let me expand on the thought a little, it works both ways, and generally its the passage out of some religious tome that sparks the argument, and we've all been down this road, and the more you go, the more you realize that you are saying the same thing over and over again, and it's not getting you anywhere... Still, time and time again, proper scientific folk get drawn into these debates, that are always about the same thing, and they always end similarly, in both sides still being at square one, in disagreeance with each other.

 

In the process of maintaining scientific integrity at a science website, it is necessary by default to refute unscientific notions, and to challenge philosophies that are based in superstition and myth.

I'm not saying that there is no justification for doing it, i'm just tired of posts being dragged from proper discussion, into the same road we've been down a hundred times, if not more... Yes it needs to be refuted, but it almost never ends in any one being defeated, in their minds, even the folk that leave the conversation, still think that their version is right, why? They are brainwashed to do so, you are trying to convince someone who has never questioned, to follow the logic of a person who has already answered....

 

Science is fascinating, studying religion I also find interesting but they are two separate paradigms.

They absolutely are, and thus they should not be mixed. I study religion, well, theology, and generally more of a historical aspect of it for me though...

[Thunderbird]

I apologize, T-bird. I don't want to appear to be implying that you have promoted I.D. I will attest that you have continually denied Intelligent Design or any other form of Creationism.

 

What I meant was that you have suggested, I believe, that there are inherent qualities in nature that lend themselves toward increasing complexity, which has been challenged as teleological putting you in the position of defending youself. Even Eclogite acknowledged that simply dismissing something as teleological was scientifically closed-minded, if I recall correctly.

 

I think in some of those discussions that you provided some very valuable information to consider. I was trying to clarify why some of the discussions you were involved in regarding evolution found their way toward a debate about creationism.

 

I admit that there are some itchy trigger fingers when it comes to creationists around here. I tend to think that's because of the shear number of posters over the years that have come here to proselytize.

I very much agree. Teleological is however is real tricky to speak about given the local climate.

What I define as an inherent order that leads to more order as intelligents may get categorized into preexisting views that where never intended, that by its nature is unscientific or philosophical. To me it is simply a buy product of studying life as a quality of the universe, and not something separate from it. If we have intelligents it is something that is a quality of the world.

[Thunderbird]

I think you took it a bit too literally, let me expand on the thought a little, it works both ways, and generally its the passage out of some religious tome that sparks the argument, and we've all been down this road, and the more you go, the more you realize that you are saying the same thing over and over again, and it's not getting you anywhere... Still, time and time again, proper scientific folk get drawn into these debates, that are always about the same thing, and they always end similarly, in both sides still being at square one, in disagreeance with each other.

 

 

I'm not saying that there is no justification for doing it, i'm just tired of posts being dragged from proper discussion, into the same road we've been down a hundred times, if not more... Yes it needs to be refuted, but it almost never ends in any one being defeated, in their minds, even the folk that leave the conversation, still think that their version is right, why? They are brainwashed to do so, you are trying to convince someone who has never questioned, to follow the logic of a person who has already answered....

 

 

They absolutely are, and thus they should not be mixed. I study religion, well, theology, and generally more of a historical aspect of it for me though...

Thats it exactly! being the contrarian that I am however you have put me in the very uncomfortable position, of agreeing with a Mod. You Bastard ! Sorry I just cannot help myself. :naughty:

[REASON]

I'm not saying that there is no justification for doing it, i'm just tired of posts being dragged from proper discussion, into the same road we've been down a hundred times, if not more... Yes it needs to be refuted, but it almost never ends in any one being defeated, in their minds, even the folk that leave the conversation, still think that their version is right, why? They are brainwashed to do so, you are trying to convince someone who has never questioned, to follow the logic of a person who has already answered....

 

You make good points, alex. I understand what you are saying. I have felt the same way.

 

One thing I keep reminding myself though, is that these threads aren't just viewed by those that are posting to them. They are exposed to the world. And while those of us who have stuck around realize the repetitiveness of science/theology debates, new people keep coming here making the same old claims unaware of the fact that they've already been hashed out ad nauseum. So they continually have to be addressed.

 

One obvious alternative that I have seen used is to simply decide not to engage someone, and instead direct them to some other previous thread on the subject, or suggest that they conduct a search and get caught up first. But it never seems to fail that we are compelled to challenge some particular point.....and here we go.

 

 

Science is fascinating' date=' studying religion I also find interesting but they are two separate paradigms.[/quote']

 

They absolutely are, and thus they should not be mixed.

 

I have rasied this point in this and other threads as well and I completely agree that distinctions should be made. I have tried to avoid sounding judgemental towards someone's faith, but sometimes that's what they hear when their deeply held beliefs are challenged or questioned.

 

I guess it's really the role of the Mods to recognize when discussions get off track, and and while I think the Mods here are good at that, they invariably are accused of being closed-minded for shutting the door on someone's argument or claim that is unfounded, or beside the point of the discussion at hand.

 

Thus the creation of this thread.

[freeztar]

I guess it's really the role of the Mods to recognize when discussions get off track, and and while I think the Mods here are good at that, they invariably are accused of being closed-minded for shutting the door on someone's argument or claim that is unfounded, or beside the point of the discussion at hand.

 

Thus the creation of this thread.

 

Pretty much, but there's more to it than that. :)