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.

 

12 Things Science Can't Explain

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword

Originally posted by Odium
TheCrystalSword, where has science said there is no such thing as a soul?


[Colbert Response]
Snip.
[End Colbert Response]


Yeah, scientists are horrible people because they don't validate extrascientific and philosophical claims. Just like my plumber -- he's such a jerk because he never does my gardening.

Zip




posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot

Yeah, scientists are horrible people because they don't validate extrascientific and philosophical claims. Just like my plumber -- he's such a jerk because he never does my gardening.

Zip


On a more serious note, It isn't that they don't try to validate that is the problem, it's that they make assertions about things they have no business asserting, like supernatural or philosophical claims. If they want to treat such subjects like a science, the more power to them. If they were to do such they would examinewithout bias or preconceived notion.

I cannot count how many times I have heard a scientist assert that this or that is impossible according to the LAWS of Physics, or the LAWS of Thermodynamics, or the LAWS OF....

It is Hubris to assume mankind has such knowledge. Truly, Socrates was the wisest man amongst men, regardless of what age he existed in.

And not only is it Hubris, it isn't even scientific. Science isn't "The way things work" it's "How we understand the manner in which they work", which does not preclude being wrong about the understanding.

Science not addressing a topic? I'm fine with it. It's when it addresses a topic from an ignorant angle that it becomes dogmatic and self-important.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Well Science won't try and validate the existence of Underwear Gnomes so I guess the Earth is flat since Scientists won't waste there time disproving the Underwear Gnomes. Good to know the Earth is flat.



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Just because it might seem ridiculous doesn't mean a thing is not true. Some people think it is ridiculous that a Cat in an irradiated box is both alive and dead until observed. Other people think it is ridiculous for a molecule to be in multiple places at once in the universe.

At one point, people thought it was absurd that the stars in the sky were anything but spirits of the dead watching over us.

Absurdity isn't how you dismiss an argument. If we'd like to examine the possibility of underpants gnomes or whatever you prefer, why not actually observe it.

Sometimes requiring proof makes the world a dreary and mundane place, I like to think that the things which aren't dreary or mundane take offense at Sciences approach to them... if someone thought that you being a person or a real living being was nonsense, I'm sure you wouldn't be inclined to seek them out or give them courtesy.

In any case, no-one has addressed the actual points of my posts, particularly the NDE questions.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   
The Moral of the story is Science is not a Science yet...

What would any of you know about Mountain Gorillas without Jane Goodall ?

Nothing!

So unless you or someone you know has investigated a subject you actually don't know jack about it period.


So act like it and be curious !!!



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
It is Hubris to assume mankind has such knowledge. Truly, Socrates was the wisest man amongst men, regardless of what age he existed in.


You got my WATS this month for that comment.

On a more related note to the subject of this thread....

I think the reason why no one is answering your Near Death Experience questions is that, that arguement is more philosphical if not religious. Science has been unable to determine what happens when you die, and I doubt they ever will due to the fact, that there is no way to measure things that don't exist. They haven't proven a soul, so they can't measure it. Also I don't see there being any greater good for them to shift such study as Cancer cure, or HIV cures, to find out whether all the Christians in the world are right, or that the scientists are wrong


On a small side note if you put mentos into diet soda it like blows up, just get any diet soda (get some generic Diet Cola its like 88 cents) and a pack of mentos (cause God knows that all you guys have bad breaths
) and just put a few mentos into the plastic soda bottle. Know why does it do this? I don't know so I am going to take Lost Shamans advice and go look it up. But if some one would like to beat me to the research and post it here or u2u me that would be great



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
The problem is, TheCrystalSword, the ball is in the court of those who believe that there are such things.

Science works on the idea that you gain all the evidence together, debate over it and then come out with a conclusion which is backed up by 'evidence'. If people wish to claim there is a soul, claim such things to a scientist than they need to begin to display evidence.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
12 Things Science Can't Explain

I would say 13 things at least

NDE's = Near Death Exsperiences

I would classify this for that cause there are so many reasons why people have these that its not funny. Here are a few reasons.

1) This is a way for the brain to cope with a tramatic exp.

2) Its just something that happens.

3) Seeing God, Jesus, Buddha, or whoever.

4) Its demons. (Altho I dont really understand this one actually. Alot of people who have NDE's usually come out of it with a better outlook on life, and don't fear death.)




my wonder is tho if it is the brains way to deal with trauma why would it have to deal with it at all if in a moment it was going to become non existant? what would it need to prepare for in shutting off?



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiderj
While I certainly believe in 7 and 11 and give strong possibilities to number 8 I don't think I'd consider psychokinesis as a proven phenomena (imo of course).

You also forgot to mention the following unexplainable things:

1) Clamato juice

2) Competitive Jello sculpting

3) That kid in college who would eat anything for a dollar.

4) Ben Afflecks career.

I'd like to see science tackle those.

SPiderj


Number 4 is great!
But number three... a college kid? I've heard of 5th graders doing anything for a buck... lick the floor, eat a worm, etc... but not a college student... whert kindd of coollage did you attend?
Community College of the Special?
good stuff


[edit on 25-11-2005 by rmatrem]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I think it is clear to say... science knows little about everything... that is what makes it science, the process of "discovery" of our "reality" thru means of trials and test as much as current technology allows...

Peace




posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   
pardon me for the whimsey, but I would like to add a 13th....how do the wormholes find my socks and take only ONE of each pair to some distant universe????



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
The Moral of the story is Science is not a Science yet...

What would any of you know about Mountain Gorillas without Jane Goodall ?

Nothing!

So unless you or someone you know has investigated a subject you actually don't know jack about it period.


So act like it and be curious !!!


What do you think observation of mountain gorillas has to do with science?


Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
I cannot count how many times I have heard a scientist assert that this or that is impossible according to the LAWS of Physics, or the LAWS of Thermodynamics, or the LAWS OF....


Give some examples and state why you feel this way about that certain topic.


Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Just because it might seem ridiculous doesn't mean a thing is not true. Some people think it is ridiculous that a Cat in an irradiated box is both alive and dead until observed. Other people think it is ridiculous for a molecule to be in multiple places at once in the universe.


It is ridiculous...for both


Originally posted by TheCrystalSwordAt one point, people thought it was absurd that the stars in the sky were anything but spirits of the dead watching over us.


There are still people who think this way, so what does this mean? That your fantasies must be true? Ha!



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   


I've heard of 5th graders doing anything for a buck... lick the floor, eat a worm, etc... but not a college student... whert kindd of coollage did you attend?


That's what makes it such a mystery. I went to Loyola by the way and the kids name was rick and he would eat or drink anything for a buck or two. It was pretty much the extent of his personality, good kid though, strong gut.

Spiderj



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

What do you think observation of mountain gorillas has to do with science?






bi·ol·o·gy (b-l-j)
n.
1. The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution. It includes botany and zoology and all their subdivisions.



Mountain Gorillas were only discovered 103 years ago.

Although Jane Goodall studied Chimpanzee's , my mistake.

If it was not for people like Jane Goodall we would know nothing about Chimpanzee's. She grew up in war torn England and as a child was enchanted by the animals of Africa, and she became one of the most acclaimed animal Researchers of the last century.



My point is that we do not know everything and Science continually changes to incorporate our new knowledge. That is why people should be curious and want to find answers on their own , not simply be content to accept the current view that Science holds.

There are just many things we may not even be aware of yet.

For instance this years discovery of organic chemistry spread throughout the universe. That one discovery changes a lot of views about the Nature of the Universe. It means organic chemistry is the rule , not the exception.

Twenty years ago Scientists were not talking much about ExoBiology , and today it is accepted that life is most likely out there.

Science is not written on stone , it evolves with us as our knowledge and ideas evolve. That is all I'm trying to say.









[edit on 29-11-2005 by lost_shaman]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
Mountain Gorillas were only discovered 103 years ago.

Although Jane Goodall studied Chimpanzee's , my mistake.


Wasn't Gorillas Sigourney Weaver, I mean Dian Fossey?



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiderj

That's what makes it such a mystery. I went to Loyola by the way and the kids name was rick and he would eat or drink anything for a buck or two. It was pretty much the extent of his personality, good kid though, strong gut.

Spiderj





posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

What do you think observation of mountain gorillas has to do with science?


Forgive me, but are you arguing that Anthropology isn't a science?




Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
I cannot count how many times I have heard a scientist assert that this or that is impossible according to the LAWS of Physics, or the LAWS of Thermodynamics, or the LAWS OF....


Give some examples and state why you feel this way about that certain topic.


The Law of Diminishing Returns in relation to free-energy devices, the Laws of Thermodynamics in relation to receiving more energy from a system than you put into it, the Law of Physics dealing with Paradox and FTL travel... oh, and the Overturned Law of Gravity.

Mankind attaches "LAW" to a lot of things that should be considered "Inclinations" or "Appearances". The arrogance of man barely exceeds his actual capabilities, but is likewise blinding to the possibilities.




Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Just because it might seem ridiculous doesn't mean a thing is not true. Some people think it is ridiculous that a Cat in an irradiated box is both alive and dead until observed. Other people think it is ridiculous for a molecule to be in multiple places at once in the universe.


It is ridiculous...for both


Tell that to all the Quantum Physicists and String Theory Folks.




Originally posted by TheCrystalSwordAt one point, people thought it was absurd that the stars in the sky were anything but spirits of the dead watching over us.


There are still people who think this way, so what does this mean? That your fantasies must be true? Ha!


Your laughter illustrates your casual dismissal of things you find idiotic. Personal views so often illustrate the foolishness of man, because humans seem to like concluding that they KNOW things.

Prove to me that in any of the multiple dimensions theorized that the space occupied by a massive body such as a star is not also occupied by spiritual being(s).



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
there seems to be some confusion over what is a law and what is a theory. If you study physics in university all these things are called laws but it assumed that what you really mean is theory.

Newton's Laws were called laws because there was little else to call them because it was thought they were exact and perfect, but when Einstein produced relativity it should be noted he called it the Special Theory of relativity not the law, the theory. All physical models are the same, the fact that something is called by a particular name doesn't mean that that is what it actually is, e.g. Kepler's Problem , the koningsberg bridge problem, they are no longer problems they have been solved, but they are still called problems. maybe nomenclature in physics is bad but its no worse than notation in mathematics



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Didn't finnish reading the whole thread yet...

What's the difference between science and religion?

Science ADMITS when it's wrong. Science DOESN'T say we know it all/have all the answer's. Science is NOT a constant.

Religion in the past has KILLED non-believer's in the name of the lord. Throughout history religion has CHANGED into many differing form's of the same one god, many differing stories, however common sense says one god = one story. If religion can't even get that right, then obviously religion is bogus. Today religion HINDER'S scientific progress that could advance mankind, HEAL mankind, and generally make life a hell of alot better for billions of human's worldwide. Why do they do this? FEAR.

Religion is FEAR of the unknown.
Science is the attempt to LEARN the unknown.

It's really as simple as that. Welcome to the universe!

[edit on 17-12-2005 by PhoenixByrd]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
^Yes you are correct.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join