UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-08-2012, 11:28 AM   #26
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper View Post
I like how unownmew has no idea how science works and frankly, thinks that a high school student is qualified to discuss pretty much any field of it in the least.
Rangeet, I know you think I am a bumbling fucking retart, but I raise you a judgemental asshole. Just because I am in high school does not mean I did not do more research on my own. That would be stupid of you to assume. Stop making stupid assumptions that have no basis on fact, thank you very much.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 11:32 AM   #27
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
Tyranitar

Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
> Because here in the UK "here are the observations and how they led to this theory" and (wherever practical in a school science lab) "do the experiment and make the observations yourself" is very much how it's taught.
This is how I learned science as well. Even when I went to school in the depths of the Texas panhandle for a year.
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 11:40 AM   #28
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Chill Blaze. I'm in my second year of the Oxford physics degree and I'm not remotely qualified to discuss the vast majority of modern physics research. Nor are you. Someone who's been a researcher in laser physics for twenty years isn't really qualified to comment on modern climate physics and an expert astrophysicist won't be able to discuss the ins and outs of modern quantum. Kindly mind your language too.

Sadly for science, we've since passed the point where it's possible for one person to fully understand all of modern physics.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 10-08-2012 at 11:42 AM.
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 11:42 AM   #29
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
No Blaze. I'm in my second year of the Oxford physics degree and I'm not qualified to discuss the vast majority of modern physics research. Nor are you. Kindly mind your language too.
I never said physics. I am a chemistry person really. I just don't like the fact that Rangeet thinks I am stupid and know nothing about anything.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 11:43 AM   #30
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Same applys to any branch of science, really, and he didn't even vaguely allude to you in the least so cool your jets please.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 12:06 PM   #31
Amras.MG
Not sure if gone...
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
I think you guys are vilifying UM in this thread. He's actually making some good points. Philosophically, creationism is valid cosmological theory of how the universe came to be, contradicting neither with evolution nor with the big bang theory, but it wasn't even portrayed as an intelligent way of looking at things, and a valid theory, until I was in college.

That said, high school doesn't matter for jack. It's really what you make of it. And I don't think US News is the best gauge of what makes for a good school, either =p
Amras.MG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 12:13 PM   #32
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
It would probably be best if you PMed them. And by the different ratio of elements, I meant things like how dinosaur fossils have a huge spike in Iridium, which is near non-existent in human fossils.
I'll do that then. As for iridium, I am no archeologist or chemist, so I can't say what that would mean for fossils discovered together.


Quote:
But the things he was trying to insinuate in kids were not even taught during HIS time. And yes, scientific "facts" as you put it, are biased. But, they are supported by data and observations...which his ideas are not.
The point was not whether they were taught or not, rather, you seemed to have an issue with him doing what he's doing with regards to education, whereas, the better issue to have (at least IMO), is about him having the power to do it in the first place. If he can do it, someone else could do it, or could have done it already in the past. And that's why I'm saying it seems you're more concerned with his bias than his power.


Quote:
I think I explained why not. Mostly because dinosaurs and humans could not have lived together. For one thing, it would have been the extinction of mankind due to our odd height sticking us out to the Raptor family. We would be PRIME hunting.
Debatable.

Quote:
True, true. I know that. The key is, as I have said multiple times before, to look up information with MULTIPLE biases, and make conclusions based on it.The problem is that most people are too lazy, stupid, or unwilling to do that.
Well, I have my education, and the mainstream science I hear pitched in the media. I count that as a particular bias, but it is often only surface-level information. Then I look at other sources online, and I weigh them together with what I know. Then I make a decision on which bias I agree with. I don't have the time to research thoroughly everything I come into contact with, so I have to make compromises. It is often my hope that, if I come with incorrect information to a debate, that I will be corrected, that I may learn and adjust my opinion.


Quote:
Wow....that is actually not how it is. That may have been the way in YOUR school, but certainly not in mine. We are encouraged to disagree if we want to, but certainly is science not taught as unalterable fact. Multiple times has it been said in my AP Chemistry, AP Biology, and AP Enviromental Science classes that this is what people believe, and this is WHY they believe it. They are more than willing to bring in the evidence and the observations that caused people to think of these theories.
AP, AP, AP, See, I only have my own education to go on, and I was not in any AP classes. Most of my education was lecture and rote memorization, not debate.

Quote:
Modern science is less like religion than it ever was. You are leading a very narrow minded view of science that is probably taught by your church. If you want the type of science you are describing, you should go back to the Middle Ages. They don't teach the scientific method for nothing unownmew. They don't say, "Nothing can be proven, it can only be disproven.
No, it's not taught to me by my church, my church makes little to no mention of secular society least of which, science, short of to encourage us to certain ways to act, and to make connections or differences regarding spiritual matters.

What I'm speaking of is the higher echelons of the scientific establishment, though I can not speak from experience, only from anecdotes by others who have experienced it, or researched into it themselves. It is similar to the Catholic Church of old, in how it approaches certain issues, disseminates information, and peer reviews. They can teach the scientific method as much as they want, but it only applies to things that don't shake up their own bias when it comes to highly respected scientist and researchers.

Quote:
Let me put out a situation for you. Scientists want to know how an owl hunts in the dark. They want to know if it is by sight, hearing, or some sort of heat vision. So, they conduct a few experiments. The first two is a mouse with no leaf attached to it, and the next two are mouses with leaves attached to it. When they released the mouse, they noticed that the chance for capture was much higher in the second group then in the first. So, they conclude that hearing is the probable hunting tool, but that it can not be sight. Then, they test it out with mice with no leaves in a cold room, and in a warm room. They see that it makes no difference how hot or cold the room is, so, heat vision is out of the question to. So, is hearing proven?
...
...
...
NO. "No you say? But there are no more possibilities!" There will always be more possibilities. But, if you can find a solution that can explain why a mouse with a leaf attached to it is caught more than a normal mouse, then it can be tested. and maybe you are right. If you are right, then hearing is disproven.
I don't disagree with you here.

Quote:
However, when religion tries to disprove evolution, they try to attack it for what it isn't, or they use the Bible. The Bible is not a reliable source, because it is untested, unfounded, and has questionable origins. Bring the Bible to a serious debate, and you will be yelled at. People try to attack evolution for the fact that it has no explanation on how life first came to be. But, that is not what it is trying to say. It just says how life grows and develops. Even the Catholic Church agrees that evolution had to have happened. Though the Catholic Church may not be the best group in the world, they have bended to scientific proof in the past. Think Galileo, well, after he was put in house arrest. The Church doesn't repeat those things anymore, does it?
Some religious evolutionary critics, yes. While I disagree the Bible can not be proven (you can perform a scientific experiment yourself to prove it if you like), it is not how I approach the topic of evolution. The theory of evolution proper may make those explanatory cases, but the way scientists use the theory of evolution, and how it's often taught in schools (at least how I was taught), is as if macroevolution is unalterable fact, particularly that humans evolved from monkeys, and everything on earth evolved from some primordial soup of bacteria, which then, through a process of adaptation, produced new species out of other, exceptionally different species.

Quote:
You are trying to pick at things that disagree with your own bias, like the Big Bang theory. Why don't you pick at something like Kinetic Theory? Religion is not "holier than thou" because it gets regularly picked at by new discoveries. If you are going to talk about bias, don't just conform to your own bias either.
I picked the big bang theory because it was quick and easy, and an example of one of those theories that are often substituted for fact when all it is is a theory.

If you'd rather, I could use the well established theory of gravity instead.

As for religion, it's obviously picked at by scientists because often scientists are religious to their own science, rather than accepting that science proper, can only be used to explain "how" things work, not "why." And of course, it is my belief that a Satan is continuously seeking to discredit religion for his own purposes, thus Religion will always be under attack regardless of any merit it might have.

Quote:
Anyways....like I said, I have a problem with one state having power over so many. This is why state control is not perfect unownmew. Texas does this, KNOWING that a lot of states are going to buy these textbooks, without the consent of the other states. That is the problem. Not every state can make its own textbooks. And when an extremist, and that it what he is.


Going on and trying to bend a nation to his will. This is a nation of "majority rules, minority respected", but this guy is the exact opposite of this. He goes in a "minority should rule, screw the majority, they all have to think like me." You can tell this guy is arrogant. You can tell this guy thinks everybody should think like him. He is more dangerous than a terrorist unownmew, because he can and will screw with the minds of our children. Remember that scene with the kids at the playground? They can not even answer whether dinosaurs EXISTED or not, when there is so much evidence that they did. That is what happens when you get an extremist who disagrees with cold hard facts.
This seems a little different from previous statements I've seen you make. If it is his amount of power that you're concerned about, then I agree, and completely see your point. What does not concern me though, is what he is using the power for, as a liberal could just as easily do the same in the same position, and then the roles would most likely be reversed, with me being the one supremely outraged and you completely unconcerned.

I don't disagree with your assessment of the man, though I wouldn't go so far as to call him worse than a terrorist, but it's the position of power that is concerning, not the person holding it. I do disagree with your assessment of the children though, as by that age I was enthralled by dinosaurs and totally thought they existed, as according to main-stream archeology's precepts.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 12:16 PM   #33
Slash
Silver LO
 
Slash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tokyo Underground Sewage Facility
Posts: 6,760
Send a message via Yahoo to Slash Send a message via Skype™ to Slash
My high school wasn't even ranked.

Foothill so ghetto.
__________________
--- ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneezey12 View Post
KAIRNE I WILL RIP OFF YOUR SCROTUM AND FEED IT TO YOU THROUGH A FUCKING SWIRLY STRAW.

Slash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 12:28 PM   #34
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
>UM

Is science education is just another on the long list of things the US is terrible at? Because here in the UK "here are the observations and how they led to this theory" and (wherever practical in a school science lab) "do the experiment and make the observations yourself" is very much how it's taught. When I was at school we literally did the experiments of, for example, electron diffraction (a demonstration of wave/particle duality) or the photoelectric effect (the explanation for which won Einstein his nobel prize) as part of my A-level syllabus.
I wouldn't know, I went to 3 different high schools in my life, and they all taught stuff in a similar manner: "these are the facts, now memorize them all so you an regurgitate them on the next test." As for science, it's rather difficult to encourage experiments and self-learning with regards to biology, mineral science, and vague theories. Like, how can we know what the earth's mantle is like, when we've never seen it? It's all theoretical, but it's presented as fact.

Evolution is depicted in such a way that all the observations (that they list) prove it's existence, and the big bang simply exists because of mass recognition, not any form of scientific basis. But I never witnessed any serious debate over the merits or demerits of any theory, only that it's merits were better than the previous theory, and so this one must be true.

But that's my experience in public education. I couldn't say anything about private schools.

Quote:
More generally, scientific research basically involves coming up with new experiments to try to break/falsify existing hypotheses - that's how all science is done.
That's not how climate science is done, and I wouldn't be surprised if other sciences follow suit in the backgrounds.

Last edited by unownmew; 10-08-2012 at 12:33 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 12:32 PM   #35
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
What I'm speaking of is the higher echelons of the scientific establishment, though I can not speak from experience, only from anecdotes by others who have experienced it, or researched into it themselves. It is similar to the Catholic Church of old, in how it approaches certain issues, disseminates information, and peer reviews. They can teach the scientific method as much as they want, but it only applies to things that don't shake up their own bias when it comes to highly respected scientist and researchers.
What are you on about? A great counter example to this is the simple fact that a number of Einsteins later ideas are known to be wrong - either contested when he said them or later demonstrated (to no controversy). His opposition to what he called "spooky action at a distance", his famous "god does not play dice with the universe" quote and the infamous universal constant are good examples of places where he was just wrong, and you don't get much more respected than him.

Dismissial of alternative ideas has little to do with where they come from and much more to do with it often being very easy to demonstrate they're nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
That's not how climate science is done, and I wouldn't be surprised if other sciences follow suit in the backgrounds.
As someone who's doing a lot of climate physics at the moment at a top university, looking into doing a research project in the area next year and quite probably going to do a PhD in the subject, I find this outright lie very offensive.

Out of interest - given my intention to continue my education and go into research in the area - at what point should I expect to be formally inducted into the worldwide liberal-science conspiracy on climate change?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 10-08-2012 at 12:39 PM.
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 12:38 PM   #36
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amras.MG View Post
I think you guys are vilifying UM in this thread. He's actually making some good points. Philosophically, creationism is valid cosmological theory of how the universe came to be, contradicting neither with evolution nor with the big bang theory, but it wasn't even portrayed as an intelligent way of looking at things, and a valid theory, until I was in college
But why are we talking about philosophy in a science classroom? It seems a little backwards to present what amounts to conjecture into a class dealing with data and the scientific method. You wouldn't teach epistemology as part of a High School science curriculum.

If creationists can provide data and repeatable experiments that validate their theory, then, by all means, present it. But simply claiming falsities of varying verificability is not enough to dismiss a theory. Until creationists can present their claims with scientific evidence, we should teach our best model of understanding, NOT what a group of people think it should be based on their personal beliefs. You can have your own beliefs that are contrary and you can teach them to your children, but that should not be done by a secular body. If you're dissatisfied by the secular body, homeschool or put them in a religious academy.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 12:43 PM   #37
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
What are you on about? A great counter example to this is the simple fact that a number of Einsteins later ideas are known to be wrong - either contested when he said them or later demonstrated (to no controversy). His opposition to what he called "spooky action at a distance", his famous "god does not play dice with the universe" quote and the infamous universal constant are good examples of places where he was just wrong, and you don't get much more respected than him.

Dismissial of alternative ideas has little to do with where they come from and much more to do with it often being very easy to demonstrate they're nonsense.
And a great counterexample of that, is, I've never heard of any of those controversies, only the continual repetition that Einstein was a genius.


I posit to you, the theory of a harmonic universe. Particularly, that all matter is made up solely as waves, that exhibit particle-like behaviors. I brought this up a while back, and was automatically ridiculed and "shut down" without any serious consideration brought to the idea, simply because it did not conform with pre-held notions despite there being actual mathematical "proof." This was precisely my point. Theories that do not conform are not accepted, and excuses are made to avoid looking seriously into them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
As someone who's doing a lot of climate physics at the moment at a top university, looking into doing a research project in the area next year and quite probably going to do a PhD in the subject, I find this outright lie very offensive.

Out of interest - given my intention to continue my education and go into research in the area - at what point should I expect to be formally inducted into the worldwide liberal-science conspiracy on climate change?
When you start working for the IPCC. Check the last link in my spoiler tag in my signature.

Last edited by unownmew; 10-08-2012 at 12:46 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 12:56 PM   #38
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
And a great counterexample of that, is, I've never heard of any of those controversies, only the continual repetition that Einstein was a genius.
How is that a counter example of what I said at all? My point was exactly that - that Einstein being wrong didn't cause controversy. It didn't matter that he was a genius, it didn't matter that he's the most famous and widely respected scientist in the history of the world, it didn't matter that he'd previously made contributions that answered the toughest problems of the day. When he was wrong, science ackowledged it and moved on. If there was, as you put it, "[a] bias when it comes to highly respected scientist and researchers", arguing that Einstein was wrong would've caused huge ruptions, so why didn't it?


Quote:
I posit to you, the theory of a harmonic universe. Particularly, that all matter is made up solely as waves, that exhibit particle-like behaviors. I brought this up a while back, and was automatically ridiculed and "shut down" without any serious consideration brought to the idea, simply because it did not conform with pre-held notions despite there being actual mathematical "proof." This was precisely my point. Theories that do not conform are not accepted, and excuses are made to avoid looking seriously into them.
I seem to remember reading that at the time and laughing at how bad his maths was and how he asserted the existence of phenomona that have been experimentally proven not to exist, but it's been a while. Link me to it again, I'll take another look.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
When you start working for the IPCC. Check the last link in my spoiler tag in my signature.
Ooh, is there a big ceremony? Do I get a fancy robe and a codename? Do we have a mountain fortress of doom? Who organised this global conspiracy in the first place, was it the Royal Scientific Society? I bet it was the Democrats gathering every other political party that believes in climate change and all the scientists in the world, those Democrats are always being cheeky like that.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 12:56 PM   #39
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
But why are we talking about philosophy in a science classroom? It seems a little backwards to present what amounts to conjecture into a class dealing with data and the scientific method. You wouldn't teach epistemology as part of a High School science curriculum.

A very good question. Why are we talking about philosophy there? Why can't scientists simply give their observations, rather than try and explain the causes for their observations?

"Wind is caused by trees blowing. There's scientific evidence for this, because every time a tree blows, wind occurs." That's how frail theories are. We should stick with the factual observations, and leave the conclusion drawing to the individuals.

Quote:
If creationists can provide data and repeatable experiments that validate their theory, then, by all means, present it. But simply claiming falsities of varying verificability is not enough to dismiss a theory. Until creationists can present their claims with scientific evidence, we should teach our best model of understanding, NOT what a group of people think it should be based on their personal beliefs. You can have your own beliefs that are contrary and you can teach them to your children, but that should not be done by a secular body. If you're dissatisfied by the secular body, homeschool or put them in a religious academy.
We should teach the observations, not conclusions. Not what a group of scientists think it should be based on their personal beliefs.

I can give some scientific evidence particularly for my own religion, but I doubt people are really interested. They weren't the last time I posted it anyway.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 01:10 PM   #40
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
Before I reply to your post, do something for me. Define science. And I don't want a dictionary definition. I want what you believe it to be.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 01:14 PM   #41
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
How is that a counter example of what I said at all? My point was exactly that - that Einstein being wrong didn't cause controversy. It didn't matter that he was a genius, it didn't matter that he's the most famous and widely respected scientist in the history of the world, it didn't matter that he'd previously made contributions that answered the toughest problems of the day. When he was wrong, science ackowledged it and moved on. If there was, as you put it, "[a] bias when it comes to highly respected scientist and researchers", arguing that Einstein was wrong would've caused huge ruptions, so why didn't it?
What mattered was, the controversies weren't significant enough to dismiss outright. Of course this calls up conspiracy theory, which I'd like to avoid. Simply because one person doesn't get the treatment doesn't mean others don't. And often the treatment occurs while the person is alive, and only after the critical elite die off does science finally acknowledge the corrections made.


Quote:
I seem to remember reading that at the time and laughing at how bad his maths was and how he asserted the existence of phenomona that have been experimentally proven not to exist, but it's been a while. Link me to it again, I'll take another look.
Yes, his equations take into account the existence of an aether. Yes, the existence of an "aether" has in the past been "disproven," but he addresses this issue, and makes the case that the experiment that disproved the aether, could not have resulted in a positive result in any case, and thus, nothing was empirically disproved.

I have my doubts that you'll take a serious look at the data, as I haven't even finished reading the whole thing, it's just that long. But what the theory does do, is unify the various theories of electromagnetics, energy, all forms of physics, etc. into one theory can can explain everything in a relatively simple manner. It even, IMO, can reconcile science with religion.

Anyway, for the curious, http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/Gabri...ere/matter.htm



Quote:
Ooh, is there a big ceremony? Do I get a fancy robe and a codename? Do we have a mountain fortress of doom? Who organised this global conspiracy in the first place, was it the Royal Scientific Society? I bet it was the Democrats gathering every other political party that believes in climate change and all the scientists in the world, those Democrats are always being cheeky like that.
Here, Enjoy.

Last edited by unownmew; 10-08-2012 at 01:18 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 01:28 PM   #42
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Had already started reading the climate change thing and may even reply to it at some point although it is a bit lengthy. As for this one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
First problem: about a third of the way down the first page, "Additionally, there is absolutely no evidence of photons inside radio waves." In actuality, the photoelectric effect (high school science, I mentioned it before) requires electromagnetic waves (of which radio waves are a small subset) to act as a stream of particles - the reason the experiment was so shocking at the time was because it demonstrated a phenomonon that was simply impossible to explain if one assumed (as they did at the time) that things like radio waves acted purely as a wave.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 01:34 PM   #43
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
Had already started reading the climate change thing and may even reply to it at some point although it is a bit lengthy.
Glad to hear it.

Quote:
First problem: about a third of the way down the first page, "Additionally, there is absolutely no evidence of photons inside radio waves." In actuality, the photoelectric effect (high school science, I mentioned it before) requires electromagnetic waves (of which radio waves are a small subset) to act as a stream of particles - the reason the experiment was so shocking at the time was because it demonstrated a phenomonon that was simply impossible to explain if one assumed (as they did at the time) that things like radio waves acted purely as a wave.
Don't worry, he'll get to that later on. Right now he's building a base of knowledge and mathematical proofs to build upon so that you can't say, when he makes other statements later on, "that's not true, it works this other way."

I do believe it is on page 23, but please do not rush ahead, otherwise you won't know the base mathematics that he's basing his claims upon, which base is necessary to his proofs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
Before I reply to your post, do something for me. Define science. And I don't want a dictionary definition. I want what you believe it to be.
Oh, that's easy.

Science is the search for truth about how the universe works. It is the mechanics side of a triangle of knowledge, describing the interactions between physical phenomena (as well as spiritual). It makes no judgements on it's data, nor concludes any which way, it is solely empirical observations of fact.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 01:42 PM   #44
Slash
Silver LO
 
Slash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tokyo Underground Sewage Facility
Posts: 6,760
Send a message via Yahoo to Slash Send a message via Skype™ to Slash
"Fact" is another hot word, which you might not define the same way as some of us, so could you also clarify your definition of that, when applied explicitly to science? Particularly on the subject of falsifiability.
__________________
--- ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneezey12 View Post
KAIRNE I WILL RIP OFF YOUR SCROTUM AND FEED IT TO YOU THROUGH A FUCKING SWIRLY STRAW.

Slash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 02:06 PM   #45
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
"Fact", eh.

A fact is recorded data, an impartial observation, something that can be shown to be as it is in every case where it is presented.

"This grass at this moment is green" is a statement of observational fact. It can be recorded, it can be observed, there is no partiality in the statement, and, as the statement distinctly specifies "this moment," it will always be the case, that this grass was green at the moment in time specified.

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." This is a statement of observational fact. It can be recorded, and there is no partiality. It does not attempt to explain why the reaction occurs, only that such a reaction is observable when an action is taken.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 02:14 PM   #46
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
Before I reply to your post, do something for me. Define science. And I don't want a dictionary definition. I want what you believe it to be.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 02:28 PM   #47
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
?

That's what I did, I defined Science as I understand it, I didn't look anything up, if it matches a dictionary definition, it wasn't intentional. What are you looking for? A 5 paragraph essay?

Last edited by unownmew; 10-08-2012 at 02:31 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 02:38 PM   #48
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
You neither made that clear nor defined anything resembling science. You described "observation", which, while being a facet of science, is not science.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 03:06 PM   #49
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
You neither made that clear nor defined anything resembling science. You described "observation", which, while being a facet of science, is not science.
You told me to define science as I believe in it. And now you disagree with my definition simply because it's different from yours?
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 03:14 PM   #50
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
>You told me to define science as I believe in it. And now you disagree with my definition simply because it's different from yours?

That's not the point.

It is impossible for us to have a debate on a topic when we cannot reconcile our definitions. And since I think that most of us will not agree with you on your definition of science, there is no way for us to have a debate with you concerning science. Unless you care to humor us on our definition of science, there's no point in even addressing any of your posts since we're just going to talk in circles about two different things.

In this case, I'm not looking to prove you wrong (even if I think you are) but only want to show that it is pretty much moot to try to have any kind of discussion with you concerning the topic of the sciences. When we can all agree on a definition, we can have a debate, but until then, we're not going to ever reach any sort of conclusion.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]

Last edited by Jerichi; 10-08-2012 at 03:19 PM.
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:22 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.