- #36
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,290
"Alas"? Means "Wake up and smell
the twenty first century." No one
says "alas" anymore.
the twenty first century." No one
says "alas" anymore.
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
"Alas"? Means "Wake up and smell
the twenty first century." No one
says "alas" anymore.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I went to school for answers. I wanted to know the GUT or TOE; I wanted to understand everything. Alas, this is not what science offers. Science seeks to develope mathematical models that predict the correct results.
My point, exactly.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Sorry, I just did.
Originally posted by Joy Division
What on Earth made you think you could learn the TOE when one doesn't exist right now and likely will not for a long time? I'm just wondering that's all.
There could exist things which can't be exlained by science. There might also not be any. Demanding answers right this instant, is a bad idea. Science proceeds trying to find answers to everything, but only the collective body of science has a chance at explaining everything we see. Not just one person. Not now at least. One of the assumptions science makes is that most everything can be explained. First you try to explain it, keep trying until you have an answer or the problem is proven to have no solution.
The way I see it there are real mysteries out there, effects that have actually been seen but not explained that need answers. We don't need to make up new ones and try to find if there is really something to explain. [/B]
Agreed.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
When we condemn [not just ignore] the claims and experiences of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, we teach them that science is impotent, and arrogant.
Originally posted by FZ+
But if you support them, you lie to them about what science is about. And if you ignore them, they think science doesn't matter.
And science is NOT about looking for an easy or most popular answer, but one that is closest to the truth, with the context of other observations.
And yet it's all about the "mechanical truth," not the "animated truth" (life itself) which lies beyond the mechanics.Originally posted by FZ+
But if you support them, you lie to them about what science is about. And if you ignore them, they think science doesn't matter.
And science is NOT about looking for an easy or most popular answer, but one that is closest to the truth, with the context of other observations.
True, but things ignored don't go away. In fact, in the minds of a lot of people, when science ignores a claim, it seems to them that science doesn't matter.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I said not just ignore, but condemn. There is a big difference between saying that no scientific evidence exist to support a claim, and claiming that something is false based solely on a lack of evidence. Nowhere in logic does a lack of evidence qualify as evidence. I know for a fact that I have experienced many things that I can never prove. For how many of your life's experiences could you offer scientific proof?
Originally posted by FZ+
True, but things ignored don't go away. In fact, in the minds of a lot of people, when science ignores a claim, it seems to them that science doesn't matter.
Hey I admit, my body is subject to gravity just like everybody else's. That's what makes it so difficult to explain. And yet caterpillars do turn into butterflies.Originally posted by FZ+
True, but things ignored don't go away. In fact, in the minds of a lot of people, when science ignores a claim, it seems to them that science doesn't matter.
Iacchus: To me, the animated truth comes from the mechanics, that one alone is not the truth.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
By definition, using logic, we can never prove a negative. This means that we can never prove that psychics don't exist.
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Actually, it is possible to prove a negative, although it is often harder. I don't know where this fallacy came from, but it is very prevalent.
For example, I can prove that I didn't buy my bicyle new at Wal-Mar if I prove that I bought it new at the local bike shop.
Likewise, if you can prove the logical inconsistancy of the existence of some object or entity with the qualities it is described to have, you can conclude that that object doesn't exist.
I agree that there needs to be more skepticism, although I don't think that most people in the Western, 1st-world countries believe in psychics. However, people are prone to taking any little thing as evidence of supernatural or whatever else fits into their theories, especially when it comes to their defined religion.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
If science has nothing objective to say because no evidence exists to support a claim, then until evidence is presented, the science doesn't matter.
Originally posted by FZ+
Grr... you forced me into agreement here.(Damn you! ) You shouldn't give the misleading impression of having truth, yes. But I still feel a duty (tacky as it sounds) to point out when people declare they have the truth when they do not, when people say - there are ghosts!, I think it is right of me to say that you don't have enough evidence to make that claim, or that theory X and experiment Y get in your way.
If it is an observation made, then yes, theory can not attack that. But if it is a claim, or a conclusion, or a theory, put into the public domain, then it is important that all sides are heard, and dubious certainties dispeled in favour of more probable ones - they have chosen to bring what they say into the open air, after all.
They must bear da konsequences of that aktion!