Home | Community | Message Board

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

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
InvisibleEgo Death
Justadropofwaterinanendlesssea
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/03
Posts: 10,447
Loc: The War Machine
Sciences fundamental flaw
    #6421289 - 01/03/07 01:46 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

I'm a bit shit at explaining myself so read this carefully before you pistol whip me with your science debate...
:blush:

Sciences fundamental flaw;

Proof.  To prove something it must be tested.

But we now realize nothing can be truly tested!

We become stuck because we cannot tell the difference between 2 particles (quantum mechanics).

But the same rule applies to the whole of science, as there's no universal testing point and thus science is fundamentally flawed.

So we end up having to agree on theories as a basis for something that claims to provide a whole proof.  The system is only true if every part of the system is correct.  Science is based on assumptions.

it has to make some basic assumptions about the nature of our reality for it to even exist!

The paradox is that we would have to test the test itself for science to not be flawed!

i understand we have to make theories and decide them to be true or not to progress.  But scientists must also understand the value of questioning every possibility! :sun:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,786
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Ego Death]
    #6421360 - 01/03/07 02:16 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

But we now realize nothing can be truly tested!

Please explain...

We become stuck because we cannot tell the difference between 2 particles (quantum mechanics).

Are you referring to two different particles? Or two of the same type of particle?

If you mean the former, then you are wrong because we can tell two different species of particle apart. If you meant the latter then you are correct...but where's the problem? Should you be able to tell two electrons apart? How, when they are identical in every way?

i understand we have to make theories and decide them to be true or not to progress. But scientists must also understand the value of questioning every possibility!

Science does not tell us if something is "true"...only if something is not true.

Your view of science appears to be a little distorted.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.


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

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/18/99
Posts: 24,145
Loc: my room
Last seen: 2 days, 16 hours
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: trendal]
    #6421494 - 01/03/07 03:02 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

A little?


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: Ego Death]
    #6421604 - 01/03/07 03:40 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

we end up having to agree on theories as a basis for something that claims to provide a whole proof.

Science NEVER proves things. All it does is provide theories that explain observations and predict the results of experiments intended to test the theory.

If the experimental results and other observations of nature agree with the predictions of the theory, the theory is lent weight, but it's never considered proved. However, if the experimental results conflict with the theory, the theory is refined to more-closely describe the available observations. This allows the theory to get better and better as it's improved over time.

However, part of a scientist's job is to figure out experimental ways to show the theory is wrong. If no experiments can be invented to show an inconsistency in the theory's predictions, it is considered a good working theory, but always with the understanding that some new experiment may ultimately find a flaw.

Example: Newton described gravity well enough to predict the positions of planets, moons, eclipses, and other astronomical events. It worked well for hundreds of years because, even though we now know it doesn't accurately describe gravity, sufficiently-accurate instruments to detect the flaw didn't exist until recently.

When accurate instruments became available, it was found that the orbit of the planet Mercury didn't agree with the prediction of the theory. When calculating the orbit of Mercury using Newton's theory, small discrepancies between the predictions of the theory and the observations of Mercury's orbit became apparent. For a long time, this discrepancy was a mystery.

Eventually, Einstein came up with a refined theory to describe gravity that describes the orbit of Mercury perfectly.

So, AS FAR FAR AS WE CAN TELL, Einstein's theory is correct, but it is NOT proved. Nothing in science is ever proved.

It is possible (likely?) that some new discovery will expose flaws in Einstein's theory. If that happens, the theory will have to be modified or replaced entirely to account for the discrepancies.

Another example is the Atomic theory. No one has ever seen an atom, so it may be the case that atoms don't exist and the structure of matter is actually very different than the Atomic theory suggests. However, if the Atomic theory were substantially flawed, things like nuclear power plants which are designed with the application of the Atomic theory would not work.

This means that the Atomic theory is ALMOST CERTAINLY correct, but even with all the evidence supporting it and no evidence against it, it remains subject to updates or even being discarded entirely if some new observation in the future contradicts the theory.

This is one of the things that irks me about creationists stating that Evolution is "just a theory" in an effort to degrade the theory in the eyes of religious people who chose to be ignorant of how science works.

EVERYTHING in science is just a theory. Saying that evolution is "just a theory" is like stating that "water is just wetness". Everything in science is theory. :mushroom2:


--------------------
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
Offlinebarfightlard
tales of theinexpressible
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/29/03
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Ego Death]
    #6421793 - 01/03/07 04:49 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

"We become stuck because we cannot tell the difference between 2 particles (quantum mechanics)."

which is a type of science, so how can you disproof science by using another science?


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

"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks


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: Diploid]
    #6421886 - 01/03/07 05:15 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

You say its not proved but yet i remember you telling me (in my perpetual motion thread) with the upmost certainty that i can not get more energy out of a system than i put in - because of a sciencific rule.

its good you realise that its all just theories and that was my point. Even the most simplest of theories is based on many many other underlying theories.

Generally, it is common for people to say stuff like 'science proved it'. Many people do hold science as a fixed knowledge system. i mean when one problems cracked its onto the next...

i think people forget to challenge things and they become stuck in their beliefs.


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: Ego Death]
    #6422391 - 01/03/07 08:43 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

You say its not proved but yet i remember you telling me (in my perpetual motion thread) with the upmost certainty that i can not get more energy out of a system than i put in - because of a sciencific rule.

What I said was that based on all we know there isn't any possible way for a perpetual motion machine to work.

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.

There are other things to think about far more likely to produce useful results compared to the almost-absolutely-certainly-impossible perpetual motion machine that you're better off using your time more productively than trying to invent it.

I'm a little stoned so if that ^^^ doesn't make sense, I'll edit it in the morning.  :rasta:


--------------------
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
Offlinechickenmaster
Topic Killer

Registered: 09/24/06
Posts: 78
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Diploid]
    #6422803 - 01/03/07 10:46 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

But we now realize nothing can be truly tested!

I beg to differ. I predict that 100 out of 100 times that I throw a ball up into the air, it will come back down. You can perform this experiment yourself if you wish.

Maybe some things can't be tested right now, in a hundred or a thousand years, you can't even image what will be possible. A few hundred years ago people didn't think it would be possible to ever know what stars were made out of. A hundred years ago, people would have laughed at you if you said someday we would be able to read the blueprints for any living organism, and that eventually we will be able to alter those blueprints however we see fit.

We become stuck because we cannot tell the difference between 2 particles

I'm assuming you're talking about particles of the same type. Maybe two quarks aren't different from each other, maybe they're exactly the same. And, maybe we can't tell the difference now, but in a hundred of a thousand years, we'll be able to.

The thing about science is that it is constantly changing and advancing. Religion on the other hand is constantly being proven more and more wrong, and ultimately becoming unnecessary. Religion is left over from a time when humans had no way to explain the world around them. Now, scientists observe the world around them and very systematically describe the way things appear to work. It's not like someone just makes up a theory out of the blue. The theory comes from many, many observations, and if the theory is shown to be flawed, it is changed to more accurately describe what's going on.

The system is only true if every part of the system is correct

Not true either. The "Theory of Everything" is only true if every part of the theory is correct. A theory only has to rely on the other (smaller, more specific) theories that it is built upon. You can analyze a chemical compound and find most of the individual chemicals that make it up. The fact that you might not know that last ingredient or two doesn't mean that the other chemicals aren't really there.


--------------------
All of the above is complete and total fiction, and is just my pathetic attempt to fit in.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Ego Death]
    #6422857 - 01/03/07 11:00 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

as others have said, science never proves anything. this isn't a shortcoming of science, but of existence itself. there is only one thing you can know for absolute certain, but science is a process by which you can get a pretty good measure on most everything else.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 23 days
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Ego Death]
    #6423763 - 01/04/07 04:37 AM (14 years, 9 months ago)

> Sciences fundamental flaw;

Yes, people that don't understand the scientific method. However, that is a flaw with people's understanding and not with science itself. (Please don't take this as a flame towards you. It isn't meant to be. I see too many pretend 'couch' scientists preaching as if they held a phd in a scientific field...)

> You say its not proved but yet i remember you telling me (in my perpetual motion thread) with the upmost certainty that i can not get more energy out of a system than i put in - because of a sciencific rule.

The "rule" is a scientific law, or physical law of science if you want to be very specific, called the convservation of energy. From wiki: "[It] is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. They are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community."

Universally accepted basically means we don't waste time arguing about it anymore. It doesn't mean that we are correct, but rather we have never seen anything to indicate otherwise. We accept these laws the same way we accept that the sun will rise in the morning. I cannot know that it will rise until it does, but based upon my years and years of experience, and based upon the years and years of human experience, the sun has always risen in the morning; thus, I will not waste time worrying about what to do if it doesn't.

> But we now realize nothing can be truly tested!

Please explain.

> We become stuck because we cannot tell the difference between 2 particles

Of course we can. We can tell the difference between an electron and a proton by mass, by physical size, by charge, etc.

> Science is based on assumptions.

Science is based on repeatable observation. An assumption is a very small part of the scientific method called a hypothesis. The scientific method is used to demonstrate that the assumption is most likely correct or incorrect. As other scientists repeat the experiments, they add evidence that the assumption is correct or incorrect. Over time, the assumption may be accepted as true (which is not absolute), but only after many people have observed the described behavior of the assumption.


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: Seuss]
    #6424357 - 01/04/07 01:59 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

Cool,
i think that i and many others have misconceptions of what science is but this is an interesting debate and has brought me to a new view point!

Now when someone says 'science proves it' i can say 'No, science doesn't prove anything, its just a best guess based on analysis of consistencies'

???


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 23 days
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Ego Death]
    #6424692 - 01/04/07 03:42 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

> science doesn't prove anything, its just a best guess based on analysis of consistencies

In the context of this discussion, I think that is a fair statement.  However, the probability that what science considers "proven" is incorrect is small.  By the time something becomes a scientific law, the probability of error is almost zero... but... there is always the possibility... :smile:  (As my physics adviser used to say, "Alpha decay happens.")


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


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: 1 month, 1 day
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Seuss]
    #6424869 - 01/04/07 04:45 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
Yes, people that don't understand the scientific method. However, that is a flaw with people's understanding and not with science itself. (Please don't take this as a flame towards you. It isn't meant to be. I see too many pretend 'couch' scientists preaching as if they held a phd in a scientific field...)



Very true, many people don't understand science. I think the media is responsible for most misunderstandings. They often present things as proven/ultimate truths, without comments. These terms are, in some way, very wrong, especially in social science. It sure is easier to talk in these terms, but it does create a wrong understanding of science if that's all what people read. I use these words myself, but my definition of these words are more delicate than they might sound.

Let me give two nice qoutes that makes things more clear. It isn't handy to give this "warning" every time you discuss a theory, but I think all people who do discuss science should know something about the ideas behind science:

"And physicists such as myself are acutely aware that the reality we observe--matter evolving on the stage of space and time--may have little to do with the reality, if any that's out there. Nevertheless, because observations are all we have, we take them seriously. We choose hard data and the framework of mathematics as our guides, not unrestrained imagination or unrelenting skepicism, and seek the simplest yet most wide-reaching theories capable of explaining and predicting the outcome of today's and future experiments."
- Brian Greene

"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
InvisibleEgo Death
Justadropofwaterinanendlesssea
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/03
Posts: 10,447
Loc: The War Machine
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Annom]
    #6427479 - 01/05/07 12:07 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

>However, the probability that what science considers "proven" is incorrect is small.

Yes but the chances increase when a theory is based on other theories! And every theory is based on another theory!!!

A small error in the original theory leads to more and more errors in any theory based on that?

What is the most proven thing humans know? it can only be 'i think therefore i am'

This is the flaw i'm thinking of.


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: 1 month, 1 day
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Ego Death]
    #6427557 - 01/05/07 12:46 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

Not every theory is based on another theory. What theory are you talking about?

If a theory is based on another theory, the new theory will be evaluated again by the scientific community. If that new theory is accurate and elegant in predicting/simulating reality(experiments) it will become a generally accepted theory.

The only way to come to the conclusion that a well tested theory is incorrect, is when experiments/observations were wrong. It is also possible that a theory is not as universal as thought when it fails to predict new experiments. That doesn't make a theory incorrect, but less general.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinenobhdy
ETNAV
Male

Registered: 05/13/06
Posts: 1,401
Loc: CT
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Ego Death]
    #6430891 - 01/06/07 01:50 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

danoEoboy said:
But scientists must also understand the value of questioning every possibility! :sun:




correct me if im wrong, but ist that basically the very essence of everything that is science? your veiws are seriously distorted. not trying to put you down because you were just trying to share an idea, but its almost offending to be told that somehow humanity has been going about figuring stuff out for thousands of years.... :frown:


--------------------
[quote]Gumby said:
And if you are going to waste peoples time with your stupid questions, at least try to have grammar skills higher then that of a 7th grader.

READ DAMNIT! [/quote]


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlineslamdunk
MexicanGang-Banger
Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 223
Last seen: 14 years, 4 hours
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Ego Death]
    #6436507 - 01/07/07 11:25 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

I'm borrowing this from a post in http://www.blackclover.com.au/bboard/viewtopic.php?t=119
I believe this to be a good argument against science.

From Lunyu December 24, 2001

In the “highly developed” technological society of today, the problems that face the public include environmental, air, and water pollution brought on by misapplication of technology, declining morality and increasing social and economic turmoil. Many people may have noticed that the human world is becoming increasingly devoid of spiritual content as technology develops. Many people may ask, “Where will today’s science lead us? What is the direction of future developments in science and technology?”

If humanity can calmly take a fresh look at this so-called “development” and “progress,” it might choose a new direction for future development. Mankind cannot just watch shadows on the cave wall anymore. A way to access truth is desperately needed. It is time for mankind to think “outside the box” and explore a new path for the future development of science and culture, to provide pure insight to those with open minds and pioneering spirits.
1) Modern Science Has Its Limits

Modern science has changed the way humans live over the last 200 years. Technology seems to have made life “easier,” but at a very high price in terms of the physical and emotional side effects and the decline in moral standards and quality of life.

Can mankind see the limits of science and technology? In the last century, for instance, nuclear energy has made the production of electricity much easier and cheaper. Yet in the form of weaponry, nuclear energy has also nearly been used to destroy civilization on several occasions. Manned flight has made the world very small, but has provided new opportunities for terrorism.

Mankind believes that it is making progress and developing. It does not see that these so-called advances are in fact simply producing more problems. In other words, mankind is trying to solve problems caused by it’s own development without realizing that every “solution” may spawn another ten new problems. Mankind tends to follow science, which ignores all that lies beyond the boundary of that which can be measured by its instruments.

2) Modern Science Is Based on an Inadequate Foundation

Modern science is based on empirical science and does not accept or admit spirituality. Its understanding of matter is wrong. The material world is all that exists according to science. It is therefore very difficult for science to discover anything beyond the boundary of the material world. Science has been made absolute and become an absolutist belief but ignores its boundaries. Today it is very difficult to explore the limits of science. People’s desire for material goods is drastically increasing. Mankind totally abandons moral restrictions in the pursuit of fame and personal interest.

Science only pays attention to people’s material needs. It excludes spiritual fulfillment while it has been used to encourage and strengthen people’s desires to conquer, invade and take away the material benefits enjoyed by others. It does not concern itself with the existence of spirituality or the concept of morality. Some of its advocates consider humanity as something separate from nature and the environment. They ignore the harmonious relationship between mankind and the natural world in which we live and, instead, their recommendations have led to serious problems and conflicts between humanity and nature. Following such recommendations as led humanity to damage and perhaps eventually destroy nature and the environment. The truth is, environmental problems are caused by the erosion of moral standards.

3) Modern Science Is Approaching an Impasse

Has modern science brought a more peaceful and a more harmonious life for mankind? No, it has not thus far provided a better, more stable, and more harmonious environment for mankind. Instead, there is severe environmental pollution, drastic ecological damage, increasing conflicts between people and nations, continual natural disasters, new diseases, and so on. There is crisis, trouble, and uncertainty. Unrestrained application of modern science has set mankind against the nature that has nurtured it. The more intense this conflict, the more tribulations and uncertainty it will bring to mankind. So-called “development” simply leads to more “new” problems requiring further “development.” Eventually mankind will be caught in a vortex and will no longer be able to escape. Humankind will be more and more confused and lost.

Modern science is reaching a dead end because it has excluded spirituality. The truth is, matter and spirit are united and cannot be separated. To maintain the development of science in a healthy way, it must accept spiritual content and morality. The damage to and pollution of the environment are caused by people’s unlimited exploitation of it as a consequence of lower moral standards. It is evidence of the decline of civilization and mankind. In the future, science and culture must respect moral principles. They must acknowledge spiritual experience and values. Only then can a new and healthy culture be born. Culture is not based on knowledge and academic research, but on the truth that gives guidance to mankind’s way of living.


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]
    #6437402 - 01/08/07 08:40 AM (14 years, 9 months ago)

Modern science is based on empirical science and does not accept or admit spirituality. Its understanding of matter is wrong. The material world is all that exists according to science.

This is a load of balony.

Of course all that science recognizes is the material world. This is because science is based on observations. If it can't be observed in any way approaching objectivity, then it can't be studied and so science has nothing to say about it.

Characterizing the fact that spirituality is beyond the purview of science as a bad thing is like stating that science is flawed because it doesn't recognize the existence of the Tooth Fairy.

The only reason science makes no statements about the Tooth Fairy (or matters spiritual or magical in general) is because the Tooth Fairy has never been observed. Provide observable evidence of some spiritual or magical thing and science will not only accept it, but likely create an entire new branch of science to study it.

Indeed, the history of science is replete with attempts to measure and study psychic phenomena, remote viewing, faith healing, [fill in the blank]. To date, EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT to study these things in a controlled environment where cheating and self-deception is prevented has resulted in exactly zero evidence that they exist outside the imagination of those who claim knowledge of the 'non-material world'.

Faulting science for not addressing things that, despite a lot of effort, just don't appear to exist no matter how hard science has looked demonstrates a refusal to accept the manifest truth and a deep ignorance of how science works on par with the most dogmatic of religious beliefs.


--------------------
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
InvisibleEgo Death
Justadropofwaterinanendlesssea
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/03
Posts: 10,447
Loc: The War Machine
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Diploid]
    #6437879 - 01/08/07 12:43 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

Theres plenty of things that have been observed by milliions of people since the dawn of man that science ignores.

UFO's and ghosts for starters. i know they exist (or something exists that causes people to see them) but generally scientists wouldn't touch them with a barge pole for fear of ridicule and discreditment of reputation.


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: Annom]
    #6437882 - 01/08/07 12:46 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

>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.


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]
    #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: 24,145
Loc: my room
Last seen: 2 days, 16 hours
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: 14 years, 4 hours
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: 1 month, 1 day
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: 24,145
Loc: my room
Last seen: 2 days, 16 hours
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, 2 months
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, 2 months
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
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Xtals]
    #6542068 - 02/07/07 10:31 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

I'm sick of all the babbling here.

Wow, all of 50 posts and already sick of this place. :rolleyes:


--------------------
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
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, 2 months
Re: Sciences fundamental flaw [Re: Diploid]
    #6542139 - 02/07/07 10:50 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Whats wrong with babbling? Could lead to nothing could lead to something.:grin:


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

"The dream is dreaming itself"--Kalahari Bushmen


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

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


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 832 0 10/12/03 12:36 AM
by wingnutx
* The Science of Synesthesia JssMthrFcknChrst 1,049 1 05/01/03 05:03 PM
by JeRiKo1
* The Science of Tripping silversoul7 1,785 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
4,807 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.047 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.