Does anyone else hate Science?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Peter Griffin, Sep 27, 2002.

?

Does anyone else hate Science?

  1. Yes, I hate Science!

    6 vote(s)
    8.6%
  2. No, I love Science!

    64 vote(s)
    91.4%
  1. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,809
    I love science and have as far back as I can remember. And yes, I would marry it if I wasn't already married. No matter how much my wife complains, I will continue to love science 'on the side'.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,721
    Unfortunately science underlies much of today's modern world, and practically most people must understand it to be good at what they do. But if one truly detests science and wants to avoid any connection with it, at least there are careers open in old English literature instruction, art, retail sales, telemarketing and advertising. And of course pop music.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Science is my God.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Just as long as you understand that science will never disprove god, as humans are too stupid.
     
  8. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    You have a powerful god, the invisible god, your god is wonderful in wisdom, He made everything for man to explore and understand and understand His wisdom .
     
  9. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Apparently it is you who does not understand science. As for calling all of my fellow humans "stupid," I'll just let the insult slide, especially since, as far as I know, you are one of us.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    One of the cornerstones of the scientific method is: "It is never necessary to prove a negative." If it were, the very finite resources of science would be quickly exhausted on the debunking of every crackpot claim that is brought to the gates of the academy.

    It is always the responsibility of the person who claims something is true, to provide evidence of that truth.

    In the half millennium since the beginnings of modern science and scholarship, no one has presented a single shred of evidence to support the hypothesis that a fantastic creature exists in an invisible, illogical supernatural universe, from which he emerges at odd intervals for the express purpose of tampering with the behavior of the visible, logical natural universe--usually in petulance and anger.

    There is a corollary to this, called The Rule Of Laplace (or "Sagan's Law" to American TV viewers): "Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect."

    There is no assertion more extraordinary than the assertion that the aforementioned supernatural creature named "God" exists, because if this were true it would demolish the entire canon of science, which has been painstakingly amassed and exhaustively tested for half a millennium and has never come close to being falsified. (All of science is based on the principle that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from evidence of its past and present behavior. This principle would be untrue if a supernatural creature from another universe keeps popping up to whimsically tamper with the behavior of the natural universe.)

    Nonetheless, because of the immense controversy over this claim, which at frequent intervals results in devastating wars, we are willing to waive the Rule of Laplace in this one single case. If anyone can provide merely ordinary evidence to substantiate this bizarre, childish and counterintuitive claim, we will treat it with respect and devote all the resources of science to testing it.

    Yet, this has never happened. No one has a single, wispy shred of respectable evidence to support the claim that there is a God. The best they've ever produced is an occasional tortilla (one out of billions fried every year) bearing a scorch mark which is asserted to be the image of a character in the Bible, of whom no portraits exist against which to compare it.

    It's perfectly okay to love fictional characters. I love Winnie the Pooh, Frodo Baggins and Kermit the Frog. Their attitude and wisdom are very helpful for navigating life.

    So there's nothing wrong with loving God, as long as you're not deluded into believing that he's real.
     
  10. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,619
    Atoms don't exist.

    There's absolutely no truth to the idea that science has value in helping us to understand the physical universe.
     
  11. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    I know enough about it to have found out what i have, and i care not what others know, as how is that beneficial to there lifes.

    If i did not have some sort of scientific mind how would i have came to understand what was being done to me if you read my posts?
    If i did not have the basis for a scientific mind, i would not have been able to work out the stuff i have without any know how from others.

    Most scientists are repeaters whom at school did not have there lifes destroyed, so they at least got through school. Does not mean they are smarter than anyone else really, just means they are repeaters.

    I care not if you think i am stupid, or others do. All humans are, and we have no one that shows us we are not, just look at the world your in.
     
  12. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Science is the only God. And Dawkins is his Prophet.
     
  13. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    I totally disagree, dawkins has given the world no value what so ever.

    The geezer is like a primary school kid, calling a persons mother names. Thats the basis of his arguments.
     
  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Despite mountains of evidence for their existence? Such an anti-scientific thing to say.

    Despite mountains of evidence going back to the Renaissance, and earlier flashes of brilliance from the Arabs and the Greeks?

    Science is nothing more than the organized use of empirical observation, experimentation, logical reasoning, testing and peer-review. What better way is there to understand the physical universe?

    A book written in the Bronze Age, when people "knew" that the world was flat and that the sun revolves around it?

    I hope you're speaking metaphorically. Gods are supernatural by definition, and the fundamental premise that underlies all science is that everything is natural. In any case it would be much more logical to compare science to the Bible.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    As for Dawkins, he established himself as a spokesman for atheism more than for science--whether or not that was his intention. People like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking fit the role of prophets quite a bit better.
     
  15. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,619
    Fraggle, Fraggle, Fraggle... What are we gonna do with you?

    I wrote: "Atoms don't exist."

    Logically, that's: ~(Atoms exist)

    It's the negation of the proposition "Atoms exist".

    If it's really true that "One of the cornerstones of the scientific method is: It is never necessary to prove a negative", then my negative statement about the existence atoms would seem to require no "proof", and presumably doesn't require any evidence either.

    So I have no burden of proof at all. Just believe Fraggle, BELIEVE!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The serious point being that when it comes to burden of proof, it doesn't really matter a whole lot whether or not the propositions we state are in the form of negations.

    What matters is whether or not our readers agree with what we are saying. If they already believe our proposition, then we have no need to convince them and no additional evidence is necessary. If they don't believe it, or aren't inclined to believe it when we tell them, then the burden is on us to do what we need to do to convince them. Otherwise, they aren't likely to ever agree with us.
     
  16. vulcan947 Registered Member

    Messages:
    26
  17. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    747
    Come on! Moderator, please tombstone this clown.

    Edit: Why would someone bump a thread all the way from 2002?
     
  18. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    A lot of people stumble into SciForums from a Google hit. They're looking for a topic and they discover a discussion of it here. They may not even notice the date.

    BTW, the last post was from 2004, not 2002.
     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    if god actually existed it wouldn't change a thing about physics, math, chemistry, astronomy. philosophy. religion, or politics.
    science assumes nothing.
    the observer does the assuming.
     
  20. Engell79 Registered Member

    Messages:
    96
    im not gonna say it... im not gonna say it!!!
    ...
    ...
    ..
    .
    okey, i'll say it...

    FLAME BAIT!
     
  21. Anew Life isn't a question. Banned

    Messages:
    461
    there are many sciences, and evolution is a big thing

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I beg to differ. The practice of science is indeed based on the premise that the natural universe is a closed system.

    If a fantastic creature who lives in an invisible, illogical supernatural universe can appear inside the natural universe at any time and perturb its behavior by performing illogical, unnatural actions (which are called "miracles" by those who believe in them), then we cannot predict the behavior of the natural universe reliably by using theories derived logically from its present and past behavior. And those predictions are what science is.

    Suppose the fairytale about "the Flood" were truth rather than metaphor. It's specified that sea level rose to cover the world's tallest mountains. That would require at least three times as much water as there is on the entire planet. This would make a mockery of climate science: there's no water shortage! Not to mention physics: where is all that water hiding? Not to mention the boatbuilding industry: We'd all better have one moored in our backyard because we can't predict when it will happen again! Like the people in Sacramento who don't trust the city's levee.
     
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    maybe we need to clarify a few things.

    first of all what IS science?
    the man doing the "what if" scenario in his lab is "doing" science just like tyco brahe.
    the first is random routine while the second is methodical, but they are still doing science.
    science, or more specifically the method is specifically geared at uncovering the unknown and making it understandable.
    to account for the human equation the method has only been modified one time and that's with peer review.
    the method makes no claims, assertions, or assumptions.
     

Share This Page