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.

 

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

page: 9
31
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme




But hey - when you have a nasty illness or disease, by all means, poo-poo science and run to your holy temple and prey to your god of choice for medical help.


I will pass on that illness and try to maintain health by eating as many raw foods with beneficial bacteria, as much organic food and chemical free water as i can within societal boundaries and if i do get sick i will hope to hell science has a fix for it

edit on 17-6-2016 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Ahmen.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 05:36 AM
link   
It appears pointing out the hypocrisy of the op is a violation of the T&C's.

So I'll leave this here instead...

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

Avoid Texting So Much: Science Shows How It's Psychologically Messing With You



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I would add that science and the scientific method are the closest things we have to identifying "truth" and reality.
That said, only so much of the universe is measurable and quantifiable.
To many it may seem irrational to believe in a creator and a universe with purpose.
I can't prove it exists but I find comfort in the belief that our lives and everything around us are not just random accidents but filled with meaning and purpose.
I tried existentialism and it nearly killed me.
At any rate it left me profoundly unhappy.
edit on 17-6-2016 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I believe in facts, truth, logic and science. The problem is that you can always find an "accredited" person to lie for you if you offer a job, money and/or power. What I have been forced to do when there is "science" behind it is look at the outcome of acting upon the science and determine from there who is to benefit, and who will lose out. Often...not always...this points out the truth. It also helps to understand that in our world, every action to "help" something, "hurts" something else on the other side of the scale.

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.

I always question people who tout electric cars. I love asking them how their electricity is produced? How the batteries of their car will be disposed of? Etc. They have no clue that often, they are buying electricity for their "green" car that is made by burning oil, coal, etc...thereby...changing nothing.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I don't know I think the climate change debate is more don't let a good tragedy go to waste.

I think it involves more human expansion into habitat and the destruction of living systems. Of coarse then you have to start pointing fingers at possible donors. If you make some kind of tax scam you can protect your donors and actually eliminate their competition with tax burdens.

The irony to me is its the gov in bed with some big businesses that actually repress innovative solutions and technology. If Exon give the pres and senators a bunch of money well that's some serious money power to create propaganda and distort the market.

Trust me the power behind climate change and polution not being caused by fossil is also huge. I don't think the oil companies are just laying down on this fight. .

Sure the climate change stuff or solutions to it rather are hypocritical and don't adress major polution issues particularly ocean coupled with over fishing



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I would add that science and the scientific method are the closest things we have to identifying "truth" and reality.
That said, only so much of the universe is measurable and quantifiable.
To many it may seem irrational to believe in a creator and a universe with purpose.
I can't prove it exists but I find comfort in the belief that our lives and everything around us are not just random accidents but filled with meaning and purpose.
I tried existentialism and it nearly killed me.
At any rate it left me profoundly unhappy.


This is the process by which your awareness justifies itself. Pretty normal.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: BO XIAN

Science is completely useless now, I only concede to your religious based beliefs.

Religion 1, Science 0.


It is completely useless in uncountable fields, because it is entirely controlled by religions that you do not even see...........

Just another convert to the limitations of SCIENCE, SCIENCE an ENTITY in the minds of most, that is free and clear to do what it has to do to find the truth.

SCIENCE is more controlled than any of the religions you and I BOTH despise.....except I despise a whole lot more, the total CONTROL of SCIENCE by beings you think do not exist................



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

Science IS controlled. It's called discipline, a critical skill in any worthwhile investigation.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
Science as we know it today is a reaction to cockamammy religious nonsense and charlatans purporting to know reality, usually at the expense of our money. The Scientific Method is an attempt to cut the BS and prove definitively whatever theorem you've got going. In some respects you have to say, "Thank God for the Scientific Method."

But the "culture of science" is conservative and though its proponents maintain it is self-correcting, many a career has been broken because a scientist has put forth politically incorrect ideas and been pilloried for it just as sure as the Catholic Church punished heretics. For example, the scientist who came up with "tectonic plates," Alfred Wegner, was hotly rejected. It was only accepted half a century later. Science is filled with examples like this.

Science is extremely biased towards physical reality and has a morbid fear of admitting anything even hinting at the paranormal. It's not that these things CANNOT be studied via the Scientific Method; they can and have been. Indeed, you can find many scientific studies that statistically prove such things as telepathy. But when you get into an after-life, or such concepts as souls and reincarnation, Science just collectively rolls its eyes and treats such subjects with derision and ridicule, particularly since such ideas, in one form or another, are frequently found in religious teachings.

There is a quote, that I am about to mangle, which suggests that after scientists have struggled valiantly to answer the profound questions of the universe, they finally get to that mountaintop only only to find the theologians waiting there for them. The bottom line here is that if science is to advance our understanding any further, it must reconcile itself with studying a very big part of reality that it now rejects as impossible.


You should receive billions of stars for this post, just add to it, that the theologians AND scientists need to reconcile themselves to the idea that things that NEITHER of them are allowed to consider are at the VERY HEART of the matter...



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Who said it negated the entire scientific method wholesale? I didn't.

Who is throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

It would be nice to see clean bath water at least every other baby, however!



When you wrote:

It is a problem OF SCIENCE in that it is inherently rooted in the SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT.

There are people who misuse the scientific method to further their agenda. The problem is the misuse itself, not the scientific method nor is it rooted in the scientific establishment.

"Inherently rooted in the scientific establishment" would mean that the establishment itself are the ones who are misusing and subverting the scientific method. The reality of it is that the scientific establishment (although there really is no governing body who could be considered "the establishment") would be the ones who would attempt to preserve the purity of the scientific method.

Granted, perhaps science needs to do a better job self-correcting bad scientific studies (through more intensive and critical peer reviews), but again, that is a problem WITHIN SCIENCE, not one OF SCIENCE.

Science itself has all the tools it needs to solve the problem -- science itself does not need to be "fixed". However, some problems with the way the scientific method is critically used to promote a hypothesis does need to be fixed.



You make it sound like some driver or crew cheating wholesale in the INDY 500 would not be a problem OF racing. I'd disagree. What happens under an umbrella . . . is a problem of what's included under that umbrella.

In that example, I would think that Indy Car Racing itself would have the means and methods to address the issue of cheating without anyone from the outside coming in to first "solve" Indy Car Racing. That would be a problem WITHIN Indy car Racing, not a problem OF the Indy Car Racing establishment.



You are completely wrong, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is highly irregular, seeks NOT to find the truth, and is highly limited in its scope of OBVIOUS BEHAVIORS.

As long as you have a religious mindset that CLAIMS it is not religious AT ALL, totally controlling all of the scientists on a subconscious level we will never have the answers to things that should have been found millions of years ago.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

The whole schism between theology and science is completely bogus and made up modern nonsense.

Laimatre who came up with the big bang was a Jesuit priest.

Mendel who pioneered genetics was a Catholic monk

There are so many of these.

The Vatican as bad as they have been in the past even fully accepts Genesis as allegory and has for nearly one thousand years. As have protestants, jews, and Muslims.

For some reason Christianity in its fundementalism form has gone about a thousand years backward in terms of analytical thought.

I may be an atheist but I don't put all people of faith anywhere near the fundamentalist label. That is just some sensational off the wall stuff.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

The problem is not with the scientific method -- which, for the most part, IS what science is. The scientific method is what defines science.

The problem is with the way some people have misused that method. However, those people who cheat the scientific method don't define science.



Yes they do !!!

Those people ENTIRELY control almost everything science is allowed to research, how they can release the findings, and what must be quashed entirely.

And they have an amazing amount of gullible people believing every dam thing they say....

They DO define it entirely, and you will believe EVERYTHING that is told to you, regarding SCIENCE......

They have won the war with you without even firing a shot!!!



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
As long as you have a religious mindset that CLAIMS it is not religious AT ALL, totally controlling all of the scientists on a subconscious level we will never have the answers to things that should have been found millions of years ago.

Since you don't have that mindset, what answers have you come up with?



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

The problem is not with the scientific method -- which, for the most part, IS what science is. The scientific method is what defines science.

The problem is with the way some people have misused that method. However, those people who cheat the scientific method don't define science.



Yes they do !!!

Those people ENTIRELY control almost everything science is allowed to research, how they can release the findings, and what must be quashed entirely.

And they have an amazing amount of gullible people believing every dam thing they say....

They DO define it entirely, and you will believe EVERYTHING that is told to you, regarding SCIENCE......

They have won the war with you without even firing a shot!!!


Science is in part a business, because everything is a business. But this doesn't reflect the inefficacy of science, it just points to the same problem we have been seeing - money controls progress. That's not a science problem, it's a corporate problem. Barking up the wrong tree, pal.
edit on 17-6-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Bingo.

Thats what I meant earlier


I was just saying it may be time to do some cleaning up of the review process as well as patents on certain forms of research. I wouldn't even consider that science as a method was the issue. I guess I got involved in some kind of weird since vs religion debate.

It's weird because my wife went to a Christian school. She had atheist teachers. Learned about science. Questioned God. She came out fine even still believes and is a scientist.

Who started this rediculous debate about science vs religion. I mean early on the Vatican was very controlling but they evolved sometimes darker than others but honestly lots of normal religeous people don't go literal with the bible. And they haven't for a long long time. Even before science just rational thought told people the creation story wasn't literal



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

Who started this rediculous debate about science vs religion.

Powerful people with too much money who see a threat to their power scientific advancement being true poses to them.
edit on 17-6-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I found that quote I alluded to earlier.

"For the scientist that has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance. He is about to conquer the highest peak. As he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greated by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
~Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomer



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join