Home | Community | Message Board

MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Ego Death]
    #6437943 - 01/08/07 01:12 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

Yea science sure isn't interested in extra-terrestrial life
http://www.seti.org
:whatever:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineAnnoA
Experimenter
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/18/99
Posts: 24,144
Loc: my room
Last seen: 15 hours, 8 minutes
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Ego Death]
    #6437997 - 01/08/07 01:41 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

danoEoboy said:
>Not every theory is based on another theory

Yes they are!

We've already agreed that all science is theory and nothing is fact - thus anything we build on is just theory on theory.




You somehow seem to fail to read what is posted in this thread....

Again, what Annom said:

"According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is 'a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.' No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth."


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlineslamdunk
MexicanGang-Banger
Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 223
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Diploid]
    #6440603 - 01/09/07 04:44 AM (14 years, 9 months ago)

I think everyone just needs to eat more sacred mushrooms, and then contemplate on the problem with science.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: slamdunk]
    #6440822 - 01/09/07 09:33 AM (14 years, 9 months ago)

the problem with science.

What problem is that?


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinesynergist
TransformativeSynergist
Registered: 10/18/06
Posts: 12
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Ego Death]
    #6443901 - 01/10/07 02:25 AM (14 years, 9 months ago)

You still misunderstand. Your statement that every (scientific)theory is based on another (scientific) theory is incorrect. You need to differentiate the common usage meaning of the term theory and the scientific useage of the term theory in your mind. They are not equivalant and your misunderstanding derives from your misunderstanding of the terms meaning. It will help your understanding if you change the word theory to the word model when thinking about science.


--------------------
ToxicMan said:
Russulas are great for kicking. Their brittle nature means they explode in a very satisfying way.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEgo Death
Justadropofwaterinanendlesssea
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/03
Posts: 10,447
Loc: The War Machine
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: synergist]
    #6444889 - 01/10/07 01:19 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

OK,
A science theory;

You can only get as much energy out of a system as you put in.

When someone tells me free energy is highly unlikely, they are basing this theory on ^ that theory.

its just a theory that we are even aware at all. For all i know, i am the only person aware and everything else was created to trick me. Really i'm a blob of goo in another dimension attatched to a machine that creates the existance i see now.

And of course that wouldn't be well substantiated because how could it be? How can anything be substanciated - this was my original point. its all a fuckin theory.

is it really that hard to understand. Every theory is based on another theory. This is fact, its plain and simple.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEgo Death
Justadropofwaterinanendlesssea
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/03
Posts: 10,447
Loc: The War Machine
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: TheCow]
    #6444904 - 01/10/07 01:22 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

Thats not what i said.

Don't misinterpret me and then call me a wanker you fuckface.

i was talking about the stigmas that are attatched to these things and if you don't understand that then your words are worthless in any debate.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Ego Death]
    #6445130 - 01/10/07 02:11 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

I guess I don't understand the stigmas you so desire to be in place. In fact I just recently read on physorg.com that we are going to drop more money into SETI and start testing for other things. So really I think you have no idea what you are talking about, and just like to claim scientists ignore things because you yourself will never understand science and cannot accept that science actually understands but chooses to rule out your beliefs.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEgo Death
Justadropofwaterinanendlesssea
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/03
Posts: 10,447
Loc: The War Machine
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: TheCow]
    #6448453 - 01/11/07 01:17 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

>>>the stigmas you so desire

Actually, i desire the stigmas to not be in place.

>>>really I think you have no idea what you are talking about

Good for you.

>>>cannot accept that science actually understands but chooses to rule out your beliefs

Your first assumption is that i believe anything at all. i can only work with what i think is probable but never definate.

What do you mean science rules out my beliefs?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineAnnomM
※※※※※※
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 26 days, 5 hours
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Ego Death]
    #6448466 - 01/11/07 01:18 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

Do you see any value in a scientific theory?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineAnnoA
Experimenter
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/18/99
Posts: 24,144
Loc: my room
Last seen: 15 hours, 8 minutes
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Ego Death]
    #6451345 - 01/12/07 08:53 AM (14 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

danoEoboy said:
OK,
A science theory;
You can only get as much energy out of a system as you put in.




Actually no, this is a LAW of the conservation of energy.
Not a theory, in any sense.

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineXtals
Stranger
Registered: 01/07/07
Posts: 207
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Diploid]
    #6535548 - 02/06/07 01:32 AM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Diploid said:
That still leaves open a tiny possibility that something we don't currently know may some day allow a working perpetual motion machine. But here's the thing: that tiny possibility is so vanishingly small that it makes no sense to even entertain the idea.





I would disagree that you can speak to the possibility of a given theory being wrong (or right). However, it is necessary for scientists to propose theories, so if science does have a working rule then you should claim that it is true. So, even though you can't genuinely prove anything with science, you still have an obligation to proclaim that scientific hypotheses are correct. Until that hypothesis is falsified, it is a working model.

For example, if someone were proposing the creation of a perpetual motion machine, then saying, "According to the laws of physics, such a device is impossible to build." is not merely acceptable within science: it is precisely how science is supposed to work. Attempting to build a perpetual motion machine is a test (an attempt at the refutation) of a scientific hypothesis. You need to state the hypothesis and the test:

hypothesis: "It is impossible to build a perpetual motion machine."
test: "I will attempt to produce a perpetual motion machine."

That is precisely how the scientific method works.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineXtals
Stranger
Registered: 01/07/07
Posts: 207
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Ego Death]
    #6535562 - 02/06/07 01:36 AM (14 years, 8 months ago)

i can only work with what i think is probable but never definate.

Given the enormous size of the universe, how can you possible speak of probabilities in a meaningful sense? We've been making empirical observations for a mere few hundred years in what is essentially an insignificant fraction of the universe. Thus, no matter how well any hypothesis we propose is corroborated, all of our data still would only allow us to claim probabilities so small that they are essentially equal to zero.

In order for us to meaningfully speak of probabilities, we would have had to make a lot more observations over a much longer period of time in a far greater part of the universe.

I also don't think you know what you're talking about.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSalvia_Antics
DMT Convert
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/28/07
Posts: 378
Loc: The Garden Of Eden Flag
Last seen: 10 years, 1 month
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Xtals]
    #6536292 - 02/06/07 11:31 AM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Theory definition: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture.

The reason everything is theory is because we speculate everything. We have to interpret the world through our senses. Our senses are controlled by chemicals and chemicals are not fixed. So nothing that we perceive is fixed therefore making all the theory's possibly wrong. Which means everything is just speculation. Including this statement.


--------------------

"The dream is dreaming itself"--Kalahari Bushmen


Edited by Salvia_Antics (02/06/07 08:56 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineXtals
Stranger
Registered: 01/07/07
Posts: 207
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Salvia_Antics]
    #6536961 - 02/06/07 04:08 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Salvia_Antics said:
We have to interpret the world through our senses. Our senses are controlled by chemicals and chemicals are not fixed.




Your line of reasoning here is circular and therefore absurd. Saying that "our senses are controlled by chemicals" is a theory, not an axion.


Quote:

So nothing that we perceive is fixed therefore making all the theory's possibly wrong. Which means everything is just speculation.




Your argument is still circular. Saying that "nothing we perceive is fixed" is also just a hypothesis. If the universe does indeed have stable physical laws, then what we perceive are indeed manifestations of fixed stable laws and thus we should be able to derive those laws.

I think that many of the above posters have made good arguments about why science doesn't offer absolute proof, but your argument is circular and invalid.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSalvia_Antics
DMT Convert
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/28/07
Posts: 378
Loc: The Garden Of Eden Flag
Last seen: 10 years, 1 month
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Xtals]
    #6537300 - 02/06/07 06:38 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

So if we had a different chemical instead of serotonin and other chemicals that determine how we perceive things then would our laws that we have built up over the observation of our surroundings still be the same? Also you keep saying my theories are circular and therefore invalid. So are circles and spheres impossible shapes they both go on infinitely?


--------------------

"The dream is dreaming itself"--Kalahari Bushmen


Edited by Salvia_Antics (02/06/07 09:16 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineXtals
Stranger
Registered: 01/07/07
Posts: 207
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Salvia_Antics]
    #6538086 - 02/06/07 10:43 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

LOL. "Circular reasoning" has nothing to do with circles or spheres.

You even point out that your reasoning is circular when you say that even your own hypothesis is speculation. You admit that your own hypothesis could be wrong. As a logical consequence, you admit the possibility that not everything is speculation (while simultaneously asserting that everything is speculation - this is self contradictory).

Circular reasoning has to do with coming to a conclusion which is either the same as the premise that the argument is built on, or that depends on assuming that the premise is true.

In a circular argument, either you are using Y to argue that X is true, when X and Y are the same thing. Or you are using Y to argue that X is true, when Y can only be true if X is true. Circular arguments are invalid.

Hell, your argument is more than circular, it is simply silly. I don't know where you're getting this nonsense about different chemicals other than serotonin. First of all, serotonin isn't the only chemical in our brains (there are millions or even billions of chemicals making up our brains). No, it doesn't matter what chemicals encode the information in our brains. This is a basic idea demonstrated by Turing and is the basis for computational theory. Whether or not it's serotonin; the spin-state of hydrogen; or magnetic alignment of domains on a film, the information is encoded and can be decoded ("transformed").

Your idea isn't really even clear. It's vague and doesn't make much sense. What do you mean by "chemicals are not fixed"?

and other chemicals that determine how we perceive things then would our laws that we have built up over the observation of our surroundings still be the same?

Maybe, maybe not, but you're confusing science with the body of scientific knowledge. They are two different things. If we were different creatures, we could conceivably be interested in different phenomena and thus we could formulate different laws merely as a consequence of investigating different phenomena.

I am going to try breaking your argument down logically. It may not be circular. I might have the wrong word, but your argument is invalid. I will come back and post after an analysis.

BTW, I am, of course, taking what you mean by "everything" to mean only "empirical hypotheses." Statements within mathematics and logic are logically valid (true) regardless of sensory input (mathematical proofs don't require scientific tests). Otherwise, to say that "everything" (as in, all statements which assert something to be true) is invalid, is patently absurd and not the subject matter of this thread.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Salvia_Antics]
    #6538261 - 02/06/07 11:34 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Salvia_Antics said:
So if we had a different chemical instead of serotonin and other chemicals that determine how we perceive things then would our laws that we have built up over the observation of our surroundings still be the same?


The goal is to glimpse that which is true regardless of perception. By taking careful measurements we are able to glimpse a reality unknowable by the senses. That is why it is so hard to understand things like relativity and quantum mechanics.

If you are not confused by quantum physics then you haven't really understood it. - Bohr

I think it is safe to say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics. - Feynman


Quote:

Salvia_Antics said:So are circles and spheres impossible shapes they both go on infinitely?


agreed.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineXtals
Stranger
Registered: 01/07/07
Posts: 207
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: DieCommie]
    #6541084 - 02/07/07 06:34 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
If you are not confused by quantum physics then you haven't really understood it. - Bohr

I think it is safe to say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics. - Feynman





Just because two people said these things doesn't make them true. Quantum mechanics is just another empirical hypothesis. What's to understand? Everything that quantum mechanics asserts had to formulated by human beings. Quantum mechanics is a formalism: it is not the word of "God" written on the wall of the universe.

I personally hate Bohr's (and Feynman's) quote because I think they are stupid and pretentious. Quantum mechanics was made up by humans. We certainly do understand it. Now sure, I don't understand why the observations of the universe have led us to its formulation and some of its concepts are fuzzy, but to flat out say that we don't understand it really is pretentious. I (don't) understand quantum uncertainty just as much as I (don't) understand acceleration.

Quote:

Salvia_Antics said:So are circles and spheres impossible shapes they both go on infinitely?


agreed.




Agreed? Agreed, huh? That doesn't even answer the question. I'm sick of all the babbling here.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Xtals]
    #6541964 - 02/07/07 10:03 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Yea its real pretentious to say that no one understands quantum. 
:whatever:

Why dont you take a quantum class, there are many things in quantum that are very strange to accept.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* A fault of science chodamunky 1,263 5 04/25/03 10:32 PM
by XOCHI
* Science Plans 'Non-Stick' Submarine wingnutx 831 0 10/12/03 12:36 AM
by wingnutx
* The Science of Synesthesia JssMthrFcknChrst 1,043 1 05/01/03 05:03 PM
by JeRiKo1
* The Science of Tripping silversoul7 1,784 14 06/01/03 05:28 PM
by SuperSpun
* I want a better understanding of Chemistry...
( 1 2 all )
PDU 4,432 23 10/16/03 04:47 PM
by doktor_alternate
* Microsoft Word security flaw BuzzDoctor 1,682 9 10/19/02 01:48 PM
by Purple_Voyage
* Science websites? RuNE 637 1 08/25/04 10:35 PM
by BufferOverflow
* So you think you know your math huh...
( 1 2 all )
Lana 4,976 29 04/30/03 08:20 PM
by ExtravagantDream

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan
4,802 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.039 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 18 queries.