It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: HooHaa
...dares to put forth an opposing alternative to the "theory". The evolution is fact brigade come in force with verbal attacks and jabs at intelligence and beliefs..
you know well that not all science people are free of the dogmatic. and its the loudest among them that are always in print or on media making stupid pronouncements in violation of scientific principles.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: stormbringer1701
It completely depends on the context. If there is a scientific issue of contention, arguments are made, evidence comes in and the scientists who were wrong concede. The matter is settled. That doesn't mean that future evidence cannot change that consensus. You're playing a game of semantics.
None of this has anything to do with your complete mischaracterization that somehow certain issues are permanently "settled" due to "dogma". You've basically made up this strawman characterization to attack a methodology that I'm not convinced you have any real understanding or experience of.
I believe in both and i am not catholic.
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
you sound like someone whose butt hurts in sympathy for those on the receiving end of a kick in the pants. :innocent:
No, but YOU sound like you are probably the sort that believes in revealed truth, and doesn't understand how discovered truth works. Catholic, are you?
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
So if anyone speaks of "settled science" to you: i suggest you kick their ass for their arrogance and ignorance.
No even the most basic thing is subject to revision
that is as close to true as can be simply expressed for a complex subject.
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: stormbringer1701
So then your issue is with only some scientists -- not science as a whole. Right?
originally posted by: GetHyped
I would love to do a straw poll of commenter's beliefs and attitudes towards science. I would put a large sum of money down on a strong correlation between magical thinking and negative attitudes towards science.
my statement is true. in science even the most fundamental thing is subject to revision. this should always be kept in mind but isn't. i think you did not read that statement as it was intended. let me restate it with out the character limit driven brevity:
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Scientists are human beings, not demigods. You can find a PhD in any field that believes in all sorts of nonsense. That's not a representation of the scientific community but the fallibility of humans. However, you said:
No even the most basic thing is subject to revision
...which utter nonsense. No field of science is immune from revision. Not just in principle, but in practice.
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
i seem to have kicked a hornet's nest though. well i am not stung. but...
"The sting of reproach is the truth of it." Ben Franklin
i did not say that at all. that's what you heard/read. but that is not what i said/wrote.
originally posted by: Bedlam
Nope, but if you say "Thus all science is wrong" as you did, you can expect a reply to correct you.
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
my statement is true. in science even the most fundamental thing is subject to revision.
this should always be kept in mind...
... but isn't.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Where the rubber meets the road the process will be that same as it was before. That is, negative local charge attracts positive local charge.
The positive ion bonding to a positive ion certainly bodes well for doing biology from scratch someday!
Oh; yes it makes a lot of chemistry more versatile. puts more tricks in the bag. also helps with understanding sub nuclear structure and thus nuclear physics.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Where the rubber meets the road the process will be that same as it was before. That is, negative local charge attracts positive local charge.
The positive ion bonding to a positive ion certainly bodes well for doing biology from scratch someday!
You are correct about political persons abusing the prestige of science to con folks out their freedom. "Settled Science" is slick salesman snake oil.
Real science reproducible facts.
I think that recent fellow's ideas on dark matter and energy and QM has something to it. some of the holes are filled by it. QM and GRT can be reconciled.
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
my statement is true. in science even the most fundamental thing is subject to revision.
True.
this should always be kept in mind...
True again
... but isn't.
Here's where I disagree.
Sure, there may be specific scientists out there who forget that everything is subject to revision -- but that is not the norm in science. In fact, most scientists live for the idea of poking holes in theories and finding out information that science was either wrong about or that science did not know.
If science didn't have the mindset that their standard theories could be wrong, then nobody would have ever questioned Newtonian Physics nor created Quantum Mechanics. Sure, Quantum Mechanics has holes in it, but Newtonian Physics has been shown to have its limitations -- limitations that would have never been found if science didn't think that Newtonian Physics (which was the standard model for a few centuries) was beyond being the subject of revision.
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Where the rubber meets the road the process will be that same as it was before. That is, negative local charge attracts positive local charge.
The positive ion bonding to a positive ion certainly bodes well for doing biology from scratch someday!
Except if you look at the actual paper, you'll find it's not ionic bonding - it's more like an induced dipole bond. The hydrogen bond forms with a locally negative area on the phosphorus created by flipping the electron around between them as a sort of shield.