Don't you hate it when people refute established/proven facts?

[BicycleTree]

Ofcourse you are not. Otherwise you would not have been able to write down your very own posts

Like it or not, what you think is determined in great part by your philosophy, stated or implicit. Alternative philosophical views do exist and it is good to be aware of them.

 

[franznietzsche]

No, like the people who ignored them. They weren't unaccepting of established fact; they were unaccepting of established dogma. They were the ones who had the facts, to the limits of their ability.

Did you just not read the rest of my post? That was a sarcastic comment.

 

[Nereid]

Like it or not, what you think is determined in great part by your philosophy, stated or implicit. Alternative philosophical views do exist and it is good to be aware of them.

No problemo! If, at the end of the day, whatever philosophical approach (or views) a person takes doesn't lead them to think they can 'stand in the neutron beam path in the building next door to me' with impunity!

No, cancel that; if there were such a person, wouldn't we have 'an existence proof' that The Rev could use in his discussions with the nice lady who came knocking on his door?

More seriously, exactly *how* you choose to think of core concepts in highly successful theories of physics is, of course, yours (philosophically) to make. From the POV of *doing* science - in the lab (a.k.a. experiment/observation), with paper and pencil (a.k.a. theory), or anyhow else - the only relevant 'objective' measure is, surely, productivity? I.e. how many (high quality) papers does a person with philosophical bentA produce, cf the person with philosophical bentB?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I too think it is healthy to have discussions where commonly established facts are challenged, it makes you look up the facts and evaluate their value. A good scientist is curious and does not take anything for granted. There are enough papers published in Science and Nature that were later refuted.

I would add that almost by definition, if there are any grand and Earth shattering discoveries to be made [and considering the recent track record in many fields of study, this seems virtually certain] accepted paradigms will fall. Which ones? Hmmmm. So even though I have the greatest confidence in "science" and the methods of science generally, I think it goes against the essential goal of science to ever accept "facts" without question. Unfortunately, people not trained in science often take this to mean that we should accept any silly idea that has no supporting evidence, or even logic behind it. There is a big difference between questioning accepted facts, and promoting bad science or nonsense.

 

[Danger]

Did you just not read the rest of my post? That was a sarcastic comment.

Sorry. I did read the whole thing, but interpreted it as sardonicism rather than sarcasm. It's not always easy to tell the difference, even with smilies.

Incidentally, SpaceTiger—cool new avatar. Is that a merkin I see clinging to your chin? Where you been hangin' out, man?

 

[Pengwuino]

You know what i hate that kinda fits into this topic... when people will argue with you on something they know nothing about that is like a book or law or something of that nature.

For example, me and my friend got into an argument about the patriot act. I had taken the time a few weeks earlier to look at the bill and the other laws associated with it . Well we get into an argument and I am all "really, what rights are being taken away from us" or something to the effect and he pretty much names off these 3 things straight from the ACLU's website. I ask him "really? where does it say that in the act?" and he goes "its just there, i know it!" and we argue a little about it being there or not and at some point he goes "well I am not some geek like you who has time to sit around reading laws, i have work to do" and I am pretty much like "So your trying to lecture me on something you didnt even bother to read?" and then he goes "it doesn't matter, i could be like you and look at the act if i wanted to but I am not a loser". Oh yah and he brought the whole argument up too by the way.

 

[Chronos]

Oh please. Talk about a pedantic argument. Do you even have a point? Zapper and Moonbear have a grip on reality, and an idea how to express it.

 

[Steve Woods]

Don't you just hate it when someone, usually an idiot, blatantly denies or refutes scientific method?

One of these situations came up yesterday. A girl in somone's class tried to explain that evolution is just a theory and isn't any more proven than (biblical stuff). He tried to claim that evolution has been studied and witnessed and that she was denying " an established fact". which wasn't even up for debate. He seemed to think that evolution had something to do with the start of creation as we know it and that was all that was widely debated.

A cohesive theory based on good scientific research and method on the development of life remains a theory whilst there are, are may be, alternatives, which fit the know or potential facts. Since we do not know all future potentila facts, most science is based on theories eg relativity. Scientific Laws are, or claim to be, logically irrefutable. The fact that many people, including myself, believe evolution to be a fact does not make it one in scientific terms. "Theory" remains the correct word.

However, I have never before heard anyone suggest that the creation of the universe was part of evolution. I thought evolution covered living matter.

 

[Soilwork]

Holy crap it was tedious reading all that pholosophical stuff.
It's so painful.
It just seemed like a really convoluted and round-about argument that questions the existence of an atom.
How this all stemmed from the initial topic I don't know.
Anyway as long as you enjoy talking about this stuff then I guess it's OK.