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 a reliable source for truth?

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: bogdan9310

Depends . Do you Favor Theory or Conjecture ?




posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Woodcarver



Do you understand that mr cleese is making fun of people like you?


Your general comprehension is also lacking, he is poking fun at you and your dogma's





I am still trying to wrap my head around this one. We really do see what we want to. I thought the skit was making fun of the scientists and others think it was proving their point. Very very interesting....



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit
edit....

I should just keep my mouth shut sometimes

....end edit
edit on 3-2-2019 by ClovenSky because: stupidity



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky

Hey Cloven , Heel .............)



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Thank you for the wake up call. My apologies.



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky

He He , I Like You Man/Woman/They/Them/It .........)



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Neither science nor religion is perfect. However, unlike religion, science begs to be proven wrong.

I trust it more than religion because science is unafraid to question itself. It takes religion/philosophy/theory to the next level; it generates empirical evidence based on observation and experience.

And it always welcomes scrutiny.



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTruthRocks

Well, let's just say i have never heard of any Scientists burning people at the stake for questioning their system of belief.



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 08:15 PM
link   
And no modern atheists have ever cut off a person's head for breaking some atheist rule



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake



Well, let's just say i have never heard of any Scientists burning people at the stake for questioning their system of belief.


Try being a Climate Scientist who goes against the AGW fiction, destroyed careers, burned to death by his peers, while they all profit handsomely.



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Woodcarver



So, i just have to believe claims that nonmaterial “things” exist? Why should i believe that?

It’s perfectly obvious that non material things exist. There is information everywhere outside of our senses and we need receivers to detect them.

Do you seriously believe there is nothing else? something that we are yet unable to detect.

You surely must believe in Quantum Physics, a science that deals entirely with the non physical, you do know that we are all energy don't you? or, that the receivers for certain frequencies are part of our own physical makeup, our own consciousness.

For some people, that reception is much stronger than others. For those of you that do not receive the affirmation of the existence of a greater intelligence beyond the physical, I have to say that you are greatly disadvantaged and perhaps you should do a little work looking inwards for a while, to regain balance.



Do you understand that mr cleese is making fun of people like you?


Your general comprehension is also lacking, he is poking fun at you and your dogma's



i don’t think you know what the meaning of the word obvious is.

How are you going to detect something that is non material.

edit on 3-2-2019 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ClovenSky

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Woodcarver



Do you understand that mr cleese is making fun of people like you?


Your general comprehension is also lacking, he is poking fun at you and your dogma's





I am still trying to wrap my head around this one. We really do see what we want to. I thought the skit was making fun of the scientists and others think it was proving their point. Very very interesting....
He is pretending to be the scientist that you imagine all scientists are like.



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
And no modern atheists have ever cut off a person's head for breaking some atheist rule
what is an atheist rule?

A rule made by an atheist?

Atheists simply don’t believe the claim that gods exist because there is no good evidence or reasons to believe people who make claims based on no evidence and bad reasons.



Atheism isn’t a belief. It is a dismissal of people’s stated beliefs because they have failed to demonstrate a reasonable path to that conclusion. What do you call people who don’t believe in ghosts? Or that UFO’s are aliens visiting?
edit on 3-2-2019 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: bogdan9310




My point is that we mostly make up knowledge, then build it up, rather than discovering it. I think that the scientific method is unreliable, it relies more on observations and less on personal experience.


Do you think that Einstein made up the field equations? Did he have some supernatural help or insight? No. Here's what he did. He picked up a pencil and a piece of paper and started working on an idea. He struggled with the math, spent many a sleepless night and collaborated with others who were working on the problem. In the end, he developed 10 equations which defined general relativity.

Is this truth? Hell no it's not. It's knowledge. It's information. It's how we move forward, building on previous work, developing new ideas, testing the limits of our capability.

Science is not about truth. It's about discovery and evidence. That's it.




And the problem I want to point out, is that a lot of people treat it like religion. They bring up science in conversations to back up their arguments like the science is settled and can never be proven wrong.


"A lot of people" are poorly educated in the sciences. It's much easier to attribute something to witchcraft than to dig in to the real nature of a phenomenon. A church is a place for religion. A lab is a place where you get down and dirty, suffer 99% experimental failure to find the 1% that works.

"Conversations" are interesting over a martini. But until you step into that lab, you can't possibly know what science is all about. Speculation is speculation. Reality is doing the job every day.



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: bogdan9310

Let's ask ourselves, who is paying for this science - we need to dig deeper.



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: bogdan9310

I have 10 year old textbooks that have stuff that is now known to be just wrong.

Science is like fashion. What's 'in' this year will be 'out' the next.

How can that be truth?
Yes.... we know all to well that text book makers have no idea what belongs in text books. That is not a problem with science. That is a political problem when public money is given to companies that knowingly print bad info to be taught in school.

Otherwise, we know very well that private interests offer big money to anyone with a phd if they will smudge some numbers or even bend results to have a study point in a certain direction.

Neither of these issues can be blamed on science. Bad science, biased science, and paying for the answers you want, are not good science.


No, the information in the textbooks was once up to date but it goes out of date all the time on high rotation.

That is what every new academic paper is these days, a pulling down of the facade that preceded it, with revised data and new discoveries.

As such, even real accurate cutting-edge science will continue to be cycled out by new, real accurate science. Always.

The process of science that reveals its inadequacy as being acceptable as immutable truth.
Yep. That is how science works. Old ideas get updated when new discoveries are made.



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

We are not disagreeing with that sentiment, we are asking is the base science true?



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

The process of science that reveals its inadequacy as being acceptable as immutable truth.

If there are people (non-scientists) out there inaccurately portraying science as immutable truth, don’t blame science or scientists. Any scientist worth anything would know better than to say that.



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: chr0naut

The process of science that reveals its inadequacy as being acceptable as immutable truth.


If there are people (non-scientists) out there inaccurately portraying science as immutable truth, don’t blame science or scientists. Any scientist worth anything would know better than to say that.


Non-scientists? Who are they when they are at home? The real deal?



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
And no modern atheists have ever cut off a person's head for breaking some atheist rule


How about all those communists that killed 100 million people in the 20th century?







 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join