Is Science Bullsh*t? John Oliver Explains The Corruption Behind Scientific Studies

a reply to: schuyler

It might give you a warm fuzzy feeling inside, but alas there is absolutely zero basis for that quote whatsoever.

Wipe out all scientific knowledge and future generations will make exactly the same discoveries.

WIpe out all religions and you'll get a new bunch of new, mutually exclusive religions that are completely different from the ones we have now.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: GetHyped

Lol that is a pretty funny contradiction. Leaving the distrust of Climate Change aside, by calling into the question the definition of theory it shows that he is a liar about caring about facts and truth.

I wouldn't mind so much but I know for a fact that I've pointed out the scientific definition of a theory to him before, he simply doesn't care to learn.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: schuyler

It might give you a warm fuzzy feeling inside, but alas there is absolutely zero basis for that quote whatsoever.

Wipe out all scientific knowledge and future generations will make exactly the same discoveries.

WIpe out all religions and you'll get a new bunch of new, mutually exclusive religions that are completely different from the ones we have now.

Nonsense. You just don't know it yet. Read something like "The Tao of Physics" then come back here and make the same statement. I believe I will take what Jastrow, a PhD in physics, says before I will concede your ignorant statements.

Religion says: "Let there be light!"

Science says: "Well, there was this Big Bang."

What's the difference? Which is more eloquently stated?

Religion has a lot of mumbo jumbo in it. It has mythology, long lost tales, moralizing, fantasy, dogma, etc. But get rid of the trimmings. Get rid of all the superficial stuff that people like you react to while failing to explore what is really there, and you find some core beliefs that science has yet to fathom. Not that it CANNOT, but science isn't there yet because of its morbid aversion to anything remotely "religious."

From Jastrow:

"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause, there is no First Cause. … This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized.

Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe? And science cannot answer these questions, because, according to the astronomers, in the first moments of its existence the Universe was compressed to an extraordinary degree, and consumed by the heat of a fire beyond human imagination. The shock of that instant must have destroyed every particle of evidence that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion."

originally posted by: schuyler
What's the difference?

An explosion can include light but it doesn't have to.

Flicking on a lightbulb is not a big bang.

The degree didn't help him from forming a false equivalence fallacy.

a reply to: schuyler

One of the most poignant ironies of our species is our sentience, being just aware enough to appreciate your expiration date and just small enough to not matter anyway.

a reply to: schuyler

Religion: "Here's a number of vague statements that can be interpreted in a number of ways"

Science: "Here's a very precise statement that is supported by empirical data and can be used to make accurate, testable future predictions"

Religion: "See? We were right all along!"

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: schuyler
What's the difference?

An explosion can include light but it doesn't have to.

Flicking on a lightbulb is not a big bang.

The degree didn't help him from forming a false equivalence fallacy.

But this time it did. The fact that it doesn't have to is completely irrelevant. You're speaking in absolutes and dogmatically insisting on being literal. It's a classic example of missing the forest because of the trees. It's not a "false equivalence." The phrase "Let there be light" is NOT about flicking on a damn bulb. It's a poetic and succinct statement expressing the beginning of everything. Scientists have essentially reached the SAME CONCLUSION. They call it the Big Bang. It's somewhat prosaic, but still has a succinct quality to it. Religion speaks in poetry and metaphor. Science speaks in numbers. They are talking about the same thing, and they're both correct.

"The Big Bang" == "Let there be light!"

If you cannot see that or appreciate the beauty of it, no one can help you.

a reply to: schuyler

Just thought I'd jump in quickly, to correct you.

The Big Bang theory is one of MANY theories that scientists have. It's the most likely and has the most evidence for it, and people tend to look at it as 100% fact, but it is still one of many.

I'm on the side of great expansion theory, rather than the Big Bang theory. Essentially the same thing, but with some differences.

originally posted by: schuyler
The phrase "Let there be light" is NOT about flicking on a damn bulb.

Sorry but you are clutching at straws. Jastrow cherry picked the one thing that may have, somehow, something to compare.

Let there be light is about turning on the lights. Then it was split into day and night. That didn't happen during the big bang and neither did any of the other occurences over the following 5 days.

Also why the bible. Are there any theologins at the peak from other religions that don't have "let there be light" in their creation myth?

If you cannot see that or appreciate the beauty of it, no one can help you.

I never asked for anyones help and as a former christian, I do recognize the condescension.

a reply to: BO XIAN

You would think Nobel prize system will enhance the development of science. The situation has become opposite. Fraud crept into the system because outsiders do not know the exact details of the scientific investigation they are preforming. The unnamed number of researchers form a closed group of society to manufacture the date that fit the known theory that may be severely flawed. The reason there is no breakthrough in science for a long time is because of this type of corruption. People have the uncanny ability to corrupt and abuse the system whenever they see the chance.
The dark matter problem, free energy device physics, electromagnetic antigravity problems are all already solved and published in the form of a book. The closed group of society will do everything possible for this news to not come out to the public while they are enjoying the false limelight of the public media. Unfortunately, Big Bang theory is one of those miserably failed theories as well as the Electro-Gravito-Magnetism tested by NASA in the experiment of Gravity Probe B with the Stanford University Group.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: GetHyped

That's because "pseudoscientific, anti-intellectual woo woo" has become mainstream within one of the two major political parties. When denying science for the sake of denying science becomes a popular argument, it follows that #ty sourcing won't be far on behind.

Yea us conservative Libertarians have been saying that about the Democrats and the RINO's.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I get you I don't deny it. I just think it's like a sore throat. It's a symptom of the disease which is the human perception of reality. Its our habits creating all this. Let's adress that. It's hard to do when your supposed to sell a hundred rubber snakes for your bussiness to put food on the table. But the snakes are totally pointless, and take up resources and polute to create.

When the gov gets involved all their buddies either get a free ride to polute , or get contracts to tool up.

The gov and the cronies are the ones stopping the innovative artifacts and cleaner energy production from having fair market opportunity. So to me its just a misdirection of an issue. Cut the head off Medusa before it's too late. Thats the only real change that will happen. If people inventions are allowed to reach the market and start changing consumption habits.

I have been saying that for years. My threads on the Hydrogen car for instance have evidence of it from Al Gore ignoring the car that was built at the University he was teaching and several other examples.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can't say enough about how as a government employee in the field of Environmental Science, I have seen firsthand the disconnect between what is available for use and what the elite government "employees" allow to make to market. I have posted numerous times in other threads about the EPA ignoring the data on the Hydrogen car. Basically, while trying to supposedly reduce pollution, they are not going to pursue H2O being split using solar panels for H2 and O2 like NASA does in space for their energy and breathable air. No pollutants, no carbon and no profit is my best guess on the reason.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
I believe in facts, truth, logic and science.

Let's see...

I don't believe in man-made climate change at least not to the extent claimed. This is because there is no hard-science that isn't simply a theory. And those who benefit are the same ones trying to cram it down everyone's throat.

And there it is. Ignorant science denial.

Really? You attack me on that? The fact is MAN-MADE climate change is a well known theory...not a fact. Do we impact the climate 1% or 99%...the TRUTH is no one knows. At the same time, there is no question that we pollute far too much and must change that fact. But the powers behind the climate change war are the same people and governments that benefit by charging those who pollute. It is a power-play to control others. They would also ignore the pollution in exchange for money, power, etc. and it is the minions of these groups that come on ATS and call names, insult opinions and ignore facts.

In other words...you.

originally posted by: noonebutme
a reply to: BO XIAN

When are you going to stop pushing and cramming your religious agenda down our throats through poorly veiled attempts to lump science with your made up fantasies?

Yes, there are problems in the science world -- but not with the methodology. And if there are, unlike religion, it can change/adapt/correct itself.

Science represents the understanding of change, the why the how. It is the antithesis of faith, which is why you are forever posting threads about it.

Why do you think or believe that the methodology is sound, when it takes many decades to come to a conclusion...that a 5 year old could surmise in 5 seconds.

The methodology used, in many cases is just about as stupid as anything I have ever come across, yet it is celebrated because people are fools.

Science represents literally no forward progress at all, it is ALL controlled from a source that has nothing to do with the so-called clean method you believe it is.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Asktheanimals

That depends on the flavor of the religion

What is the flavor of this religion which has people completely believing they know what SCIENCE is , how it is run, and how great it is for us all......

originally posted by: ParasuvO
What is the flavor of this religion which has people completely believing they know what SCIENCE is , how it is run, and how great it is for us all......

The same flavor as the religion which has people completely believing they know what SCIENCE is , how it is run, and how bad is for us all......but without the sprinkles.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Asktheanimals

That depends on the flavor of the religion

What is the flavor of this religion which has people completely believing they know what SCIENCE is , how it is run, and how great it is for us all......

That would be the fundamentalist approach

"The bible is absolutely correct, flawless... and anything that says otherwise (including science) is wrong"

originally posted by: BO XIAN
Condolences and congrats.

Nice to have good memories.

What were his main fields of interest and expertise?

Thanks.

Been a long time, but thanks.

He was a computer guy, from the days of punch cards and microfilm cards. Worked on big main frames, and could write programs for the system he had at home. Loved astronomy, and had so much knowledge there! Really, interested in a lot of things. I do miss the long late night conversations, about anything and everything!!

a reply to: ParasuvO

Even if what you say is true, it's not nearly as terrible or brainwashed as religion. At least one can test science, repeat experiments and look at the data.

I'd love for science to take a serious interest in metaphysical subjects mentioned throughout the years. You're probably right that it is being supressed.

However, spirituality seems to be entirely dependent on things like meditation and deep personal insight. I doubt the human race has the technology to measure and understand the deepest layers of existance and our spiritual beings.

It's understandable why mainstream completely ignores the paranormal. A lot of it is BS. It is riddled with theology, superstition, unprovable personal experiance, and liars.

I agree with many here that science is the only real way to find objective truth. Truth which can be explained and demonstrated. At least until higher technology is released to the public (if hidden), or until humanity evolves enough to focus their intellect on investigating these things.

a reply to: GetHyped

Your brazen, relatively unfounded, assumptions

are showing . . . again.