10-08-2012, 11:28 AM | #26 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
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.
__________________
|
10-08-2012, 11:32 AM | #27 |
beebooboobopbooboobop
|
This is how I learned science as well. Even when I went to school in the depths of the Texas panhandle for a year.
__________________
|
10-08-2012, 11:40 AM | #28 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
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:
Last edited by Concept; 10-08-2012 at 11:42 AM. |
|
10-08-2012, 11:42 AM | #29 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
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.
__________________
|
10-08-2012, 11:43 AM | #30 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
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:
|
|
10-08-2012, 12:06 PM | #31 |
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 |
10-08-2012, 12:13 PM | #32 | ||||||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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. |
||||||||||
10-08-2012, 12:16 PM | #33 |
Silver LO
|
My high school wasn't even ranked.
Foothill so ghetto. |
10-08-2012, 12:28 PM | #34 | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
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:
Last edited by unownmew; 10-08-2012 at 12:33 PM. |
||
10-08-2012, 12:32 PM | #35 | |||
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Quote:
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:
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:
Last edited by Concept; 10-08-2012 at 12:39 PM. |
|||
10-08-2012, 12:38 PM | #36 | |
プラスチック♡ラブ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
|
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. |
|
10-08-2012, 12:43 PM | #37 | ||
Banned
|
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. Quote:
Last edited by unownmew; 10-08-2012 at 12:46 PM. |
||
10-08-2012, 12:56 PM | #38 | |||
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Quote:
|
|||
10-08-2012, 12:56 PM | #39 | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
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:
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. |
||
10-08-2012, 01:10 PM | #40 |
プラスチック♡ラブ
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.
|
10-08-2012, 01:14 PM | #41 | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Last edited by unownmew; 10-08-2012 at 01:18 PM. |
|||
10-08-2012, 01:28 PM | #42 | ||
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
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:
__________________
Quote:
|
||
10-08-2012, 01:34 PM | #43 | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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. |
|||
10-08-2012, 01:42 PM | #44 |
Silver LO
|
"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.
|
10-08-2012, 02:06 PM | #45 |
Banned
|
"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. |
10-08-2012, 02:14 PM | #46 |
プラスチック♡ラブ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
|
|
10-08-2012, 02:28 PM | #47 |
Banned
|
?
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. |
10-08-2012, 02:38 PM | #48 |
プラスチック♡ラブ
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.
|
10-08-2012, 03:06 PM | #49 |
Banned
|
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?
|
10-08-2012, 03:14 PM | #50 |
プラスチック♡ラブ
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.
__________________
Last edited by Jerichi; 10-08-2012 at 03:19 PM. |
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|