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.

 

Science is a conspiracy

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

You'd rather have us all 'ooh' and 'aaah' when someone claims to have x-ray vision? To just naively accept it and any other bizzare claim without any support?
Er, no thanks.


Yes, you've caught me out, that is exactly what I want.




posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
BattleofBatoche says:

” Well I'm an actual scientist. A geologist to be exact. I also work for the 'evil oil & gas' companies in the search for more petroleum reservoirs.
Anyways I can tell you with 100% conviction that my science is all made up as we go along. Nobody was around to measure time geologically speaking of course.”


I am glad to see a person of convictions here. I am not a geologist, unless you say that someone who has taken three geology courses is a ‘geologist’. However, I do not think ‘your’ science is made up, as I believe Charles Lyell, Alfred Lothar Wegener, Luis and Walter Alvarez, and other people like them worked from sound observations and have good data to back up their ground-breaking work.

“As for my own experience, geology is a made up science to help foster the idea of evolution. But hey, the oil companies pay good, so if you want a great paying job become a geologist. No math, and the world is running out of resources.”

The absolute minimum of math requirements I have seen for a BS in Geology is two three-credit courses of calculus with applications, a four-credit course in statistics, and two five-credit physics courses. ( geology.csustan.edu... ).

Here in Arizona, the ASU requirements ( www.asu.edu... ) are three 4-credit courses of Calculus with Analytic Geometry or two of the calcs and one Elementary Differential Equations; plus, of course, the usual physics, chemistry, and statistics courses.

Where did you get your degree?



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
I can't begin to count the times we have pulled core samples out of the ground, take them in the lab, analyze them and lo & behold micro fossils, sponges, trilobytes, and all kinds of simple prehistoric creatures that were already suppossed to be extinct for a couple a hundred million years OR were not suppossed to have evolved yet for at least a few dwcades of millions of years.
All any one says is "oh must have been a fault zone or some kind of anomoly" but it hppens so much it has lead me to beleive the Earth is not as old as public school & Hollywood wish us to believe.

If you're finding something like that, and it can't be explained by 'faults or something', then its your responsibility to research it and try to understand it and publish it.

Earth is not as old as public school & Hollywood wish us to believe

How would you know? You're saying you aren't researching these things, that you just find things that you're not convinced are normal, but then do nothing about them.

As for my own experience, geology is a made up science to help foster the idea of evolution

This seems to indicate that your experience is extremely poor in the matter.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
science is flawed the scientific method in general

it means that science is based on faith alot more than "facts" i.e a faith in the knowledge we had at the time we decided to make ideas factual THIS REALIZATION IS PROBABLY THE MOST STUNNING SINCE IT GOES AGAINST MANY PEOPLES BELEIFS

MANY SCIENTIFIC FACTS ARE MERELY FAITH DRESSED UP IN ASSUMPTIONS LIMITED BY THE KNOWLEDGE WE HAD AT THE TIME WHEN THEY WERE MADE FACTUAL and to compound the matter new theories with possible validity could then be disproved based because of "old facts" which once deemed fact remain that way even if they were based on abstractins from other assumptions resulting from what now seems like outdated logic

however science was and continues not designed to confuse us and hold humanity down , that is down right stupid

i beleive the scientific thoery was the best way to go about figuring out the answers to unknowns that coud be devised analytically and most scientists have positive intentions in there respected fields and i'm sure many never even questioned the logic behind the methods used, assuming if it's not broke don't fix it. however it is not broke, yet it is not factual it is more based on assumptions of things that we suppossed were true based on the knowledge we had at the time we decided this. and many new theories which could have "validity" may be discarded because they don't adhere to a scientific law that may have been decided to be true based on evidence and the perspective we had hundreds of years ago, which based on recent discoveries or knowledge, (in retrospect) could just as easily be seen as flawed (if it was not already considered to be a fact i.e disprovable)

however there are those with in the field who i'm sure have figured out the flaws in scientific theory and i'm sure have used this to there advantage when deciding which theories are perceived by the rest of us as facts (this would be a bit of a power trip)

[edit on 30-7-2006 by cpdaman]

[edit on 30-7-2006 by cpdaman]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   
cpdaman says:

"science is flawed the scientific theory in general to be exact"

What 'scientific theory in general' are you talking about (to be exact)? Ar3e you saying the scientific method is flawed? If so how?

"it means that science is based on faith alot more than 'facts' i.e a faith in the knowledge we had at the time we decided to make ideas factual"

That is not true at all. Science does not base its data on a 'faith in the knowledge we had at the time...'; indeed, the whole point of science is that, as new data comes along old 'facts' are replaced with new assumptions which we use until we find something even better, i.e., something that explains the universe more coherently.

This is why real science books are constantly being updated: as new data is discovered and integrated, scientists have to change their views to fit, not what they want to happen, but what they've found out.

This is also why 'pseudoscience' or 'junk science', like the works of Immanuel Velikovsky, Zecheriah Sitchin, Edgar Cayce, etc. never change. Since they know that additional rsearch and new data will prove their silliness wrong, they never change their books.

"THIS REALIZATION IS PROBABLY THE MOST STUNNING SINCE IT GOES AGAINST MANY PEOPLES BELEIFS"

It certainly goes against my beliefs!

"MANY SCIENTIFIC FACTS ARE MERELY FAITH DRESSED UP IN ASSUMPTIONS LIMITED BY THE KNOWLEDGE WE HAD AT THE TIME WHEN THEY WERE MADE FACTUAL and to compound the matter new theories with possible validity could then be disproved based because of "old facts" which once deemed fact remain that way even if they were based on abstractins from other assumptions resulting from what now seems like outdated logic"

I'm sure there's a point in there someplace, but for the life of me, I cannot determine what it is.

"however science was and continues not designed to confuse us and hold humanity down , that is down right stupid"

Correct.

"i beleive the scientific thoery was the best way to go about figuring out the answers to unknowns that coud be devised analytically and most scientists have positive intentions in there respected fields and i'm sure many never even questioned the logic behind the methods used, assuming if it's not broke don't fix it."

Are you implying that scientific logical constructs such as Occam's Razor are 'questionable'? If so, do you propose a more sound 'logic' to take their place?

[edit on 30-7-2006 by Off_The_Street]

[edit on 31-7-2006 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   
OFF THE STREET pardon me the scientific method is flawed . yes

and as spooky666 laid out earlier in this thread for u here is the thought process that can help u see this perspective since it is not obvious

The scientific method ..How valid is it?

The scientific method is what it is. However , there is no other better way to do it. Having said that , the scientific method of hypothesis testing is based on the following sequence:
(1)Start with a hypothesis
(2)Devise tests within the known realm .. that is you can devise tests from a set of existing accepted tests .. or you come up with something what a human mind can think within the limits already imposed by the scientific training.
(3)The tests will validate some already existing established theories or knowledge or will contradict them… keep in mind that the already existing knowledge was validated the same way initially.
(4)It will come with predictions that which are physically verifiable. However .. they will follow the same course for getting established in future.
(5)The results will be presented within the limitations of the word.. including mathematics which after all is just a more concise language.Add to it what the tester wants you to believe or disbelive based on his prejudices.

The obvious flaws are that the process of verifying and generating knowledge is in some way axiomatic in that ..that you start wih some reference points whose truth you accept …usually through the testimony of the scientific books or faith in the very method which was used to verify those facts which we are skeptical about.

To quote an example of the aristotalean inferential logic(… though lot of other guys have used the same method at different times)
I see smoke on a hill
Where ever there is smoke there is fire.(use existing knowledge database)
Like in a kitchen( I am damn sure now)
Hence there is fire on the hill

So from my observation of the smoke on the hill I infer there is fire on the hill without actually seeing the fire.
The example is contrived and trivial but serves the purpose to stress a few points. Now, have I seen all the somke and fire combinations of the world. Of all the worlds… of all the times .. past anf future… How true is the coincidental togetherness of fire and smoke although I have never been contradicted till now. The skepticism seems bizziare in respect of this trivial example … but just try to confront your self with say relativity or quantum mechanics question … and you immediately start doubting that your and my science is also no more than the faith reposed in prophets of science… prophet einstien or prophet max planck…

But still , it seems there is no better method than this as it serves as an acceptable lowest common denominator as a method to establish the truths or untruths.
I know what Ive said is not leading to anything… but should it really.. I am not establishing any truth .. just doubting the existing ones.

it means that science is based on faith alot more than "facts" i.e a faith in the knowledge we had at the time we decided to make ideas factual THIS REALIZATION IS PROBABLY THE MOST STUNNING SINCE IT GOES AGAINST MANY PEOPLES BELEIFS that science is about "hard evidence that is proven to be true" until it is disproven later?
OFF THE STREET :
"That is not true at all. Science does not base its data on a 'faith in the knowledge we had at the time...'; indeed, the whole point of science is that, as new data comes along old 'facts' are replaced with new assumptions which we use until we find something even better, i.e., something that explains the universe more coherently
well basically if u read ur response back to yourself s l o w l y u will see that besides proving my point u may be hard pressed to show me examples of science changing laws (replacing old facts) with new assumptions and if u could u would just prove my point that it is more based on faith in our current beleifs



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Cpdaman, it seems to me that you are saying that the scientific method is based on faith as much as facts.

I suppose you could say that Occam's Razor ("the simplest explanation is usually the best") is a matter of "faith", as well as my belief that ("since the Sun has risen in the East for the past million years, it will rise in the East tomorrow.") is "faith".

But the difference is that this kind of "faith" is based on repeated observations, not a book written centuries ago by someone based on wishful thinking rather than direct observation.

That kind of "faith" is based on the idea that if the Bible (or the Qu'ran, or the Book of Mormon, or the Bhagavad-Gita, or the Analects of Kung fu-Tze) says it is so then it is so because ... because ... well, just [b[because[/b[!

The scientific approach makes the assumption that, since certain things have always happened so far, they will probably continue to happen that way tomorrow. If they don't, then the scientist says, "Oops! I need to find a better explanation, one that takes into consideration my new observations!"

On the other hand, the pseudo-science people like Sitchin or Velikovsky will ignore new observations, either pretending that they don't exist or hinting darkly of conspiracies. The religionists will also ignore new observations, again pretending that they don't exist or hinting darkly of the Devil.

Either way, the non-scientists do not take into consideration new observations, which is why (given that we're find out new stuff all the time) their explanations for the Universe always fail in the long run.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 03:19 AM
link   
We want to view our world in black and white and the TOLERANCE TO AMBIGUITY is a virtue we do not possess. Hence our expectations from science and our interpretaion of what science is doing for us. Science is not creating any facts. The facts are what they are. So there is no new fact to be created or even discovered. All is already there. What we are doing is to see it and put it in a language we have agreed upon.This is of course essential as the framework aids in working up more observations and facts into the same language which becomes our store of knowledge for future. So basically, Scietific knowledge is the representation of the facts or observations in a language we understand.
To illustrate the point :
F=GMm/r2 is the force exerted between two bodies(Hope im right ? but thats not important)
The method has not created the force. It is just our way of representing the observation. There is plenty more to be seen here.If you set out to explain it in English , the concise statement F=GMm/r2 would take 2 pages of english text and still be ambiguous at the end of the exercise. (If english or any spoken language could do it ... who needs maths). Now the statement F=GMm/r2 presupposes many things. It needs my faith and agreement that the =,* and / operators are already known and agreed and are right and valid(Dont scoff that where is the doubt and these are true anyway...for your dogma or dogma and beliefs of those who did 9/11 will be no different coz there is no commonly agreed judge to adjudicate)It also presupposees that * is repeated addition , and addition presupposes that the succession op is valid(S(1)=2 and s(2)=3) and you also presuppose that the numbers exist. In fact now you are down to the axioms that generate the maths.. that the numbers exist and that the succession op is defined. So you need to have faith in the axioms and the methods used thereon to generate the edifice that is laid on the axioms ... a big faith. Now the r in GMm/r2 actually assumes that the two bodies are point sources which will now need you to agree that Integral Calculus is agreed upon valid method.
Please note here we have still not talked about the actual scientific statement GMm/r2=F. We are just discussing its representation. The complexity in confronting the actual fact in question will obviously be enormous..
But now the point is, there is no other way to go. You need to possess faith in the validity of the number theory and calculus if you hope to make any headway in your quest to understand F=GMm/r2. Enlarge the canvas and you see that the same faith is needed in the established methods of science and the scientific data generated by these methods commonly refered to as "Scientific Knowledge" if you want to work in the existing framework.
The fact is that the framework works , it is the best that is there as of now , It can be doubted , better frameworks are possible but the foundations of the existing one are too strong now to be dislodged.. small structures will be challenged , few walls will fall but the framework will survive...
... And it may be in the ultimate design of nature that its actual laws and absolute methods are not to be discovered by the constituents... But what is available now works ...



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I think I have some thing more to say.. It seems to me that for any method or any system to work , the structure has to be essentially axiomatic .. that is you at some point have to agree upon certain axioms ab anitio and then apply methods thereon and arrive at conclusions. For any system say a relegious theory or a scientific theory to work .. one has to agree upon a few axioms ab initio although a structure may be built in the axioms themselves so that they also are bound by some structure...
I know i am sounding oblique ... Ok let me try ...
I think to generate knowledge or to generate and justify a theory in scientific realm or relegios or social or political domain .. one of the first steps is to reach a consensus on what is/are valid means of gaining knowledge...
This seems trivial ... or does it... Ok a few ways come to your mind ... and have been documented by scores of guys .. here are a few that i feel have got a chance of being considered valid by more than a few...
(1) Observation .. by your senses (eyes ears skin ....) Bingo!! although you still got a doubt as you dont know what to do with a mirage( a guy sees water in the desert where there is none)
(2)Inference ... you infer from what u observe by method (1) in respect of things you dont observe directly ... remember smoke on the hill.. you infer that a hill is on fire observing a smoke and knowing where there is fire there is smoke.. or is it?
(3)Comparison.. I am told a wild cow looks like a cow.. I go to a jungle .. see some thing that looks like a cow and yet is not a cow.. I compare and conclude that this indeed is a wild cow
(4)Testimony.. of the sages ..seers...prophets...scriptures...scientific books ... teachers.. I cant conduct tests every time ... so testimony could be valid... any way also consider the claims that such and such word is revealed by god and was not created... 10 commandments ... gita...
(5) Intuition.... I need not go through any of the steps above and intuitively arrive at the result without going through the intermediate steps...

The point is ... you can judge where u stand . First decide which all are valid methods... for u ...The level of yur scepticism is set out above...

Parting Thought.. How scientific are the issues concerning my faith(relegion and sprituality) and how much is my science a matter of faith??? Think about it and let me know ...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join