View Full Version : Attack (or defend) the science
Soulforged
09-05-2005, 06:51
Later a lot of threads attacking religion in all forms have poped up, so i thought that it will be a nice topic to talk about what it's the value of science, not compared to religion, but in abstract. If you want to attack science in anyway, then offer arguments, your opinions, sources ç, phylosophy, all that you want. But let's make this clear this is not an attack on religion, but it can be an attack on science, that's not so easy to defend as someone may think. My questions are: what makes science so certain? What makes you believe that it's founded on realility and it's not biased? What do you think about inductivism or deductivism? Well let's see it.. :duel:
PS: I'll really like to see the opinions of the conservatives and the fanatics here, sure they can offer some refutation to the all knowing caracter of the science.
Papewaio
09-05-2005, 06:58
There is Physics and the the rest is stamp collecting.
Adrian II
09-05-2005, 07:03
I am looking for a 15-series of 1861 Victorian Uniform Penny Posts (blue), can anyone help me?
Strike For The South
09-05-2005, 07:14
Im not going to attack anyone over there personal beliefs just because they don't agree/badmouth mine. Im happy with what I belive and don't need other peoples approval
P.S Or did I just miss the point of the thread ~:confused:
Papewaio
09-05-2005, 07:18
Physics isn't a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money.
BTW The first quote is from Rutherford who got a Noble prize in Chemistry ~D and Lord Kelvin was the first to make a similar statement.
:furious3: stamp collectors do "important research" on litterature and people die because of short food and energy and water ~:eek:
:furious3: stamp collectors :charge:
AntiochusIII
09-05-2005, 07:38
Erm...what're you saying, Bartix? It's probably a joke but...I don't really get it...
I see no need to defend something that is perfectly capable of defending itself.
sharrukin
09-05-2005, 07:44
Science is biased by the preconceptions of the scientists themselves. It does however have a reasonable means of correcting itself over time. This has limits, again due to the preconceptions of scientists. Despite these limitations, it is a powerful tool for discovering the world around us.
"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue."---Winston Churchill
They'll hand out a Nobel prize for chemistry to just anybody! They gave one to Linus Pauling for his work on the basics of molecular structure, particularly proteins. His work was the basis for the later discoveries of those two guys, Crick and Watson. In fact, some have suggested that Pauling, who was also seeking the clues to the structure of DNA at the same time, might have discovered the double-helix before Crick and Watson had he been able to attend the same London conference in 1952 where Crick and Watson saw x-rays of chromosomes with distinctive interference patterns (taken by the sadly uncredited Rosalind Franklin, wh never got the credit she deserved for inspiring Crick and Watson's work). Why was Pauling unable to attend the conference? He was denied a passport by the U.S. government because since the late 1940's and early 1950's he had become rather vocal about stopping nuclear testing and the arms race and "loyalty oaths" resulting in him becoming a target of McCarthyism. He was considered a risk. It wasn't until after that conference, when he was awarded his first Nobel prize in 1954 that he received an unrestricted passport. His blacklisting in the 1950's came in spite of the great contributions he made during WWII. He invented synthetic blood plasma, he invented various explosives, he served on a presidential commission to recommend future gvernment research programs which directly resulted in the establishment of the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Merit by Truman for his work during the war. But, because he also believed strongly in peace in the era of the horrors of nuclear weapons, he was labelled a traitor. In the latr 1950's he began agitating for an end to all atmospheric nuclear weapns testing, circulating a petition than finally went to the UN with over 9000 signatures f scientists - this during the height of the Cold War. His efforts paid off, in spite of being villified in the press with the 1963 limited test ban treaty. The same day that the treaty went into effect, the Nobel prize committee announced that Pauling would be the recipient of the Nobel peace prize for 1962. He's one of the very few people to receive two unshared Nobel prizes.
Pauling was an eccentric and one of my favorite scientists. Maybe one of the most brilliant men of his time, alongside Einstein. There's a story about him being invited to the Kennedy White House for a dinner in 1962. He spent the day marching around outside the White House with a placard calling for an end to atmospheric nuclear testing, then that night he and his wife had dinner with the president. ~D
Science is more a part of the world then religion, different faiths may come and go, but science cant just dissapear unless a fundamentalist regim takes over the entire world and push us back to the stoneage.
Science is also wonderfull, just like History, in that it is never 100%, something can only be more or less true. Something that was true yesterday is false tomorrow and so on. Religion doesnt have that luxuary.
Seeing as religion and science is to totaly different, they have nothing in common and should never be mixed in any sence.
Some might claim that science cant explain everything, im convinced that science Can explain everything, it allways just a matter of time.
:bow:
The Black Ship
09-05-2005, 16:00
Something from nothing...science will have a problem explaining that. How did something, the Universe, come from nothing?
Now, science can categorize, describe, explain actions, analyze phyiscal properties...any number of events that fall within the purview of the scientic process. Yet, how did something come from nothing?
Sjakihata
09-05-2005, 16:06
Who says that something came from nothing? Maybe our minds cannot fathom that there maybe always have been something.
Adrian II
09-05-2005, 18:18
Now, science can categorize, describe, explain actions, analyze phyiscal properties...any number of events that fall within the purview of the scientic process. Yet, how did something come from nothing?Why don't you join in the effort to find out? I am an ageing stamp collector, but you, The Black Ship, supposing that you are as young and smart as you sound, can try your hand at physics and make it your business to explore and investigate such fundamental questions.
This is the thread that I've been waiting for for over 2 years. A chance to vent my spleen on the demon called science.
Why should I believe some guys just because they've spent years studying something that has the potential to improve my life, when superstition or myth can provide me with all of the answers that I'll ever need.
Or I could just guess at the answers, that works pretty good. Or listen to the voices in my head.
Gah!, attack science, Gah!
ichi :charge:
doc_bean
09-05-2005, 19:31
There is Physics and the the rest is stamp collecting.
Theoretical physics is hardly science however...
Seamus Fermanagh
09-05-2005, 20:58
I have no grief with science. As a frame of thinking/belief/discipline, methodical science as practiced since the general acceptance of hypothesis testing, experimentation, and quantitiative analysis has yielded a wealth of improvements across the span of human existence. We have learned more about what makes us and our universe "tick" in the last 150 years than was learned in the previous 15,000.
The stunning aspect of this is how many roadblocks get in the way of learning. Politics and money invade all facets of research (e.g. Who is on your dissertation committee ddeciding your fate? Who is the editor of the scholarly journal in your field and will she/he actually publish your findings? Yes, your basic physics research into the nature of existence may push all of mankind's knowledge forward...but the dean is hammering you with memo after memo to pump out more of that good work on laser refraction that keeps getting such wonderful grant money from "the man.") Researchers of all stripes are actively encouraged to bag replicative studies in favor of "ground-breaking" efforts, since the latter get published and the former often don't. This is despite the fact that replication is absolutely vital to confirming the value of any initial "discovery." DESPITE this, science continues to shove us forward in knowledge at an amazing pace.
Seamus
Papewaio
09-05-2005, 22:13
Theoretical physics is hardly science however...
I did Applied Physics at a BSc level so I would be biased in agreeing with you.
But I don't.
Physics without Theory is Religion without God(s)... lack of direction.
I am looking for a 15-series of 1861 Victorian Uniform Penny Posts (blue), can anyone help me?
No but I have some early 20th Century United States postal stamps. And a unfortunately used and overstamped - 1932 Airmail stamp. ~:eek:
Adrian II
09-05-2005, 23:10
No but I have some early 20th Century United States postal stamps. And a unfortunately used and overstamped - 1932 Airmail stamp. ~:eek:We're in business! :smash: :rolleyes:
doc_bean
09-06-2005, 00:03
I did Applied Physics at a BSc level so I would be biased in agreeing with you.
But I don't.
Physics without Theory is Religion without God(s)... lack of direction.
True, but theories without a way of testing them aren't scientific. Maybe someone, someday will find a nice way of testing whether we live in a 5 or 13 dimensional space, but until then, I'll consider theoretical physics (at least string theory and such) as an intellectual excersise, but not as science.
Papewaio
09-06-2005, 00:42
If it can be tested and is disprovable then that is one of the conditions of a science. It is not in a limbo state of non-science until it is tested however.
==== EDIT for clarity... well I will try to be more clear ====
Part of science that sets it apart from philosophy IMDHO is that it is tested. However it is still science if it hasn't yet been tested... a car is still a car even if it hasn't been driven, just not particularly useful.
ICantSpellDawg
09-06-2005, 01:38
what were the arguements against christianity when it was first born?
I tend to like science, but simply because something is "true" one day and "false" the next, it undermines any solid faith in a path or decision. If something is "true" one day and "false" the next, it was never "True" to start (either that or it was not false). a life without faith (like my life) is a sad and immobile thing. pure science nearly eliminates faith. Faithful scientists are misleading themselves if they "believe" in something as truth, because probability points to it being decidely "wrong" over time, most likely.
i dont know. both religion and science have their drawbacks. i tend to side with science, but nearly any attempt by proponents of science to eliminate or vie with religion is met by me with contempt and scorn. Just as most challanges of science by religion.
IMO, everyone has their heads up their asses and are blindly running to whatever they believe the future is.
i am convinced of nothing
The Black Ship
09-06-2005, 02:25
Why don't you join in the effort to find out? I am an ageing stamp collector, but you, The Black Ship, supposing that you are as young and smart as you sound, can try your hand at physics and make it your business to explore and investigate such fundamental questions.
Funny you mention it, I try my hand at physics every day. I work in the Medical Physics department at a Cancer center. When I enter the desired monitor unit into the linear accelerator I expect a certain outcome. If that outcome doesn't occur, I attempt to find out why.
Doesn't explain how something came from nothing though...the accelerator won't run without power, try as I might, but I can explain certain actions, causes, and can investigate. But that doesn't get science off the hook for my original question.
Where did the power come from at the beginning of time? Of course, if you believe it was provided by God, then I'd also have to ask "was there a time before God? And if so, how did he (something) come from nothing"?
bmolsson
09-06-2005, 03:30
Religion and science is not in contradiction to each other. Science is a tool, which is used to try to explain phenomena and to use as a basis for development and evolution of our collected knowledge.
The largest problem with modern science is that it is often used for the good of individuals. Scientific work has many times taken the shape religion has and is nothing more than a political tool to push a specific agenda forward. More direction is needed.....
Papewaio
09-06-2005, 03:32
Actually more politicians with a science degree is needed rather then the 1% or so who do...
We're in business! :smash: :rolleyes:
Well you have to answer the secert stamp collector question before we can do business.
Which came first the stamp or the glue on the back of the stamp? :book:
ICantSpellDawg
09-06-2005, 04:06
does anyone know how many politicians are doctors (medical or other scientific fields) and where they reside in the political spectrum?
Soulforged
09-06-2005, 04:42
P.S Or did I just miss the point of the thread ~:confused:
Yes you did, but i hoped that some religion fanatic to came hereand say something like this. Todo bien boludo :rtwyes:
Sjakihata
09-06-2005, 07:05
Which came first the stamp or the glue on the back of the stamp? :book:
Da stamp ~:cool:
does anyone know how many politicians are doctors (medical or other scientific fields) and where they reside in the political spectrum?
Well, I looked; because I'm curious as well. Sadly, I can't find any site which had the information in easy to get form. I did find that 3 members of the current U.S. Congress are medical doctors, all three Republicans. I don't have the patience to go through the biographies of each of the other 432 members to determine their educational background. I'd be willing to bet that most of them are lawyers, though. ~D
Adrian II
09-06-2005, 07:49
Which came first the stamp or the glue on the back of the stamp? :book:The glue! (Just guessing- wasn't that originally gelatine or something?)
The glue! (Just guessing- wasn't that originally gelatine or something?)
This site has the information that I know. Hell even I don't know the answer for this one. But I image it is the stamp.
http://www.glassinesurfer.com/stamp_collecting/gsrowlandhill.shtml
Adrian II
09-06-2005, 14:44
This site has the information that I know. Hell even I don't know the answer for this one. But I image it is the stamp.
http://www.glassinesurfer.com/stamp_collecting/gsrowlandhill.shtmlGelatine was thre first, it is a natural product extracted from skin and bones. And Redleg, that site of yours is biased. It has an obvious pro-stamp slant. ~D
Gelatine was thre first, it is a natural product extracted from skin and bones. And Redleg, that site of yours is biased. It has an obvious pro-stamp slant. ~D
Of course its an obvious baised and pro-stamp slant. They are on a mission to take over the world through the postal systems. Once you get used to getting stamped mail - you will want more and more of it. Then the postal stamp collectors of the world will gain superpowers through the licking of the gelatine behind the old postage stamps. (An age old secert only to be shared amongst the stamp collectors of the world - and I will have to send the Stamp secert police to your location to re-educate you into the fold.) Those powers will allow us to take over the governments of the world through the postal system. Changing documents in the mail so that we gain the power of the universe.
Adrian II
09-06-2005, 16:15
Then the postal stamp collectors of the world will gain superpowers through the licking of the gelatine behind the old postage stamps.So even that nice old lady at the post office has... you know... superpowers? :shocked3:
So even that nice old lady at the post office has... you know... superpowers? :shocked3:
Yes indeed - did you not notice what her powers were
Paul Peru
09-06-2005, 17:13
My theses on science:
1. Science sux!
2. Science is just a lot of guys (and a few gals) in white, massaging their egos and publishing stuff that they hope noone understands, because it's certainly of no use to man nor beast.
3. Science is in the pocket of Big Business Capital Corporation Multinational Money-men. Science these days doesn't care about gaining understanding of the world or improving quality of life for common people, just ways to squeeze money out of the many and dump it on the few.
There has recently been a major breakthrough in Norwegian stamps: You can now buy a stamp that says something like "normal letter type thing, priority" Instead of "6 kroner", so next year when you finally want to snail-mail a few words to your disconnected friend, it's still valid! ~D
Why on Earth should I attack science? Science is what makes the world move forward.
1. Science sux!
Without science the world wouldn`t have developed further, and we`d been stuck in the stone age. ~:handball:
Adrian II
09-06-2005, 18:46
Without science the world wouldn`t have developed further, and we`d been stuck in the stone age. ~:handball:And without humour, such as Paul Peru's, we would soon revert to that age again.
And without humour, such as Paul Peru's, we would soon revert to that age again.
I sensed some semi-humour--semi-truth, in Paul`s statements..
Seamus Fermanagh
09-06-2005, 18:58
Probably. The best humor always has just a touch of reality in it -- or it isn't quite as funny.
Seamus
Soulforged
09-07-2005, 00:36
Why on Earth should I attack science? Science is what makes the world move forward.
Well i said attack or defend. In any case i didn't see a single argument that sais "ok science is knowledge because" or "science has value of certain because".
Without science the world wouldn`t have developed further, and we`d been stuck in the stone age. ~:handball:
I think i can refute you there. Science didn't existed on those times, even further it was religion and simple human relatioships what made the humans evolve. Science came a long way after that, begining with logic thinking. But on those times there was not induction or deduction, it was simple reaction to the enviorament what made the technology appear.
bmolsson
09-07-2005, 02:38
Why on Earth should I attack science? Science is what makes the world move forward.
Without science the world wouldn`t have developed further, and we`d been stuck in the stone age. ~:handball:
I guess the victims in Tjernobyl or Hiroshima might have a different opinion on that one....... :book:
Papewaio
09-07-2005, 02:44
The population boom is directly linked to our understanding of the world... particularly medical science and energy generation... biology and physics and chemistry.
The population boom is directly linked to our understanding of the world... particularly medical science and energy generation... biology and physics and chemistry. Primarily fertilizers.
I think i can refute you there. Science didn't existed on those times, even further it was religion and simple human relatioships what made the humans evolve. Science came a long way after that, begining with logic thinking.
At least we`d be stuck in medieval times. Science=development.
SoulforgedBut on those times there was not induction or deduction, it was simple reaction to the enviorament what made the technology appear.
They have to try to find the best way to react, hence science.
I guess the victims in Tjernobyl or Hiroshima might have a different opinion on that one....... :book:
Do not blame science for Tsjernobyl, it was just some dumb-asses who wanted to find out how much heat the reactors could work at, or something like that. Human fault, not science.
If the americans hadn`t dropped the nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki thousands of more soldiers would die in bloody war from reef to reef. Someone had to die anyway. And BTW, still humans and not science.
bmolsson
09-08-2005, 02:48
Do not blame science for Tsjernobyl, it was just some dumb-asses who wanted to find out how much heat the reactors could work at, or something like that. Human fault, not science.
If the americans hadn`t dropped the nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki thousands of more soldiers would die in bloody war from reef to reef. Someone had to die anyway. And BTW, still humans and not science.
Well, based on your statement above, its humans that creates development nothing more nothing less.
Science is a part of human evolution, it's not something that stands alone. Neither is religion. Our society has gone from agriculture to industrial to information, who knows, maybe the next step will be spiritual...... ~;)
Soulforged
09-08-2005, 04:35
Well, based on your statement above, its humans that creates development nothing more nothing less.
Science is a part of human evolution, it's not something that stands alone. Neither is religion. Our society has gone from agriculture to industrial to information, who knows, maybe the next step will be spiritual...... ~;)
I don't think so, the humanity will, hopefully, develop into a more rational reflexive species. Either way i think that we shouln't blame ideas for the destruction of human kind, this has been discused, and it's notoriously wrong to blame ideas for the movement or stillness of the socialworld, mans are the only ones that kill, that work, that produce, that love... in the final instance the idea can be just another leaf in the wind, while the work of the human can make it an loud cry...
Well, based on your statement above, its humans that creates development nothing more nothing less.
Science is a part of human evolution, it's not something that stands alone. Neither is religion. Our society has gone from agriculture to industrial to information, who knows, maybe the next step will be spiritual...... ~;)
Developing an atombomb is not the same as using it. Scientific results do not damage, using scientific results on the other hand, might.
Atomic bombs killed more than hundred thousand people, but maybe one day it`ll save 6 billions from a an asteroid impact. Who knows.
bmolsson
09-09-2005, 07:26
Developing an atombomb is not the same as using it. Scientific results do not damage, using scientific results on the other hand, might.
That is only knittpicking..... ~:grouphug:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.