Science the new religion

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Sad thing is I never stated whether or not I agreed with Global Warming or not. You just assumed I did. And I might add that calling someone ignorant is a blast my friend.

This was my first response:

You can disagree all you like. The problem is actually being able to bring forth evidence to support your position.
That's where deniers and cranks seem to have an issue.

This was a direct reply to "have you ever tried disagreeing", and so my response was apt. Moreover, I didn't call you ignorant at that point. You may want to check your response to this post though, heh.

as if you as are some god among monkeys. Need I cut and paste examples?

Oh, no. I know my place. You determined it. Monkey boy. If I was monkey god, you would have said so.

As for the rest I won't bother

Aww. OK.

I was going to go into Sagan's 'dragon in the garage' and other stuff. Oh well. I guess we were getting to close to showing the difference between religion and science.

Cheers.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

Oh, no. I know my place. You determined it. Monkey boy. If I was monkey god, you would have said so.

Yep thought so. Pushing buttons.
And you have ever since you joined this thread acted like some great one of knowledge talking to inferiors. Once again need I cut and paste?
Re-arrange what I say however you want. I didn't call you a monkey god. At one point I called you a monkey boy yes.

you are acting as if you are some god among monkeys.

Yes I changed it to fix my typo. (added acting and removed as)
Awww look you got to call me back what I called you. Geeee shucks.

That's where deniers and cranks seem to have an issue.

IE anyone who disagrees is either a denier (inference is someone who is just trying to deny reality) or a crank.

Aww. OK.
I was going to go into Sagan's 'dragon in the garage' and other stuff. Oh well. I guess we were getting to close to showing the difference between religion and science.
Cheers.

Rrrrrriiiiigggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttt pretend like you have some point you have yet to have revealed, figures. Not falling for it though.




[edit on 6-9-2007 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant


hey hey hey, it looks like you're perpetually skipping over valid points that mel is making. how nice, it shows how you lack in the arguments and rebuttals department.

if science was a religion, you'd be able to point out a dogma. you pointed out climate change, we've already shown that there is adequate room for healthy discussion so long as whatever position being presented has evidence.

where's the dogma?

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

That's where deniers and cranks seem to have an issue.

IE anyone who disagrees is either a denier (inference is someone who is just trying to deny reality) or a crank.

If you want to claim that GHGs are not GHGs, and that climate is not warming even after showing you good evidence, then you are a denier. You are denying the multitude of strong evidence that suggests otherwise. But it goes futher than that.

I said earlier that I would consider someone like Lindzen a contrarian. Although he does skate close to thin ice of denial. I didn't say anyone who disagrees. There will be people who are ignorant of the evidence, there will be people who honestly question certain parts of the science. Then there are deniers and cranks.

The deniers and cranks are people like Tim Ball, Fred Singer, and Bob Carter. They are dishonest brokers of science, they have little integrity. They sold it for an oil-soaked shilling.

Fred Singer is a fantastic example of a denying shill. Check out his history. He is a serial denier. From tobacco to CFCs.

If you don't understand what has been happening, and is happening, in the climate science debate, then I can't help you. There is a concerted effort to spread FUD. It is a well-worn technique developed during the attacks on tobacco health science. It is coming from the highest parts of the republican party in the states, from right-wing think-tanks, and industrial interests. The IPCC is the best place to find where the science is.

And, you know what? They still spout their nonsense. No-one shuts them up. If they actually had some real evidence, rather than BS rhetoric, then they might have an impact on the science. But for some reason they stick to media output on this issue, heh. So, in sum, no dogma. Just a call for honest science.

I consider this to be well-established now. Dogma is untouchable even with reliable contrasting evidence, science is not. Scientific theories and positions can be overturned by evidence. Can we move on?

Anyway, yeah. I have a dragon in my garage. He's invisible, of course...

[edit on 6-9-2007 by melatonin]

I find it extremely interesting that melatonin, who is one of the most educated people on the board when it comes to evolutionary science among other things, is mocked for his superior knowledge.

And you have ever since you joined this thread acted like some great one of knowledge talking to inferiors.

Melatonin IS one of great knowledge talking to inferiors. Of whom I count myself one -- mel knows a lot more than I do about this stuff, and every post of his I learn something new.

Anyway, I don't see him talking down to you, but I do see him talking to you in scientific terms as someone capable of understanding what he's saying. So perhaps this "inferiors" business is simply projection of insecurity? It does happen sometimes. Not that I'm pointing fingers, just making idle observation.

At any rate, I think that statements like those are derailing the thread from the original thrust of it, whether science is the new religion. Which I am positive has been proven to be untrue.

Can we continue the discussion without personal attacks now? Or is this thread dead?

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Melatonin IS one of great knowledge talking to inferiors.

Need a tissue? You've got something brown on your nose. Sorry you've got an inferiority complex, but as I understand it, Melatonin has extensive studies in psychology. Perhaps Mel can help you out?

There are a lot of educated people on ATS, melatonin is one of them, though don't see how anyone else is 'inferior' because of mere knowledge. Melatonin is a SME at what Melatonin does, I'm a SME at what I do, electrical engineers are SME's at what they do.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Need a tissue? You've got something brown on your nose. [edit on 6-9-2007 by saint4God]

So much for leaving out personal attacks. This was so uncalled for.

reply to post by saint4God


Nice Christian attitude you have there. Can we get back to the thread now? Or do you have more personal attacks you'd like to get off your chest first?

Saying that someone has more knowledge than me in an area of expertise is not brown-nosing, it's knowing my own limitations and admiring someone who has more advanced understanding of subjects than myself.

I have ceased arguing and am just stating my views now.
Eh. It is to be expected. I am quilty of personal attacks and I will admit it. And agree I was wrong. Maybe most guilty maybe not, I will not go farther than the fact I am in fact guilty of it. Not something I am proud of but either way what's done is done. And yes the thread has spiraled off again partially my fault.

I have ceased arguing and am just stating my views now.

And I could care less how many PHD's a person has or their IQ score (and I can and will doubt anyones stated credentials on here because this is after all the internet and lies abound on the net). Means little in the big scheme of things, in my opinion. Still capable of being a fool (honestly not pointing that at anyone just saying). I disagree with any number of points and regardless of how much we ALL dance with words and no matter how many words are thrown back or forth I doubt there will ever be a complete agreement. Neither side including myself will allow for it, only for complete capitulation to each others whatever. Things I see as over confidence in humanities abilities is not viewed as such by others and both view points are equally valid in the sense that as far as I can see no one has an unobstructed view of reality.

I have ceased arguing and am just stating my views now.

I was also wrong in even starting this stupid thread, so I am content to let it die. Think what you will of me. I refuse to believe I am a fool for questioning really everything human (and I know many disagree but I see science as a human tool that takes a little too high a view of itself, and some put on high when things are not that cut and dry as I see them, not arguing that mind you because like I said I see no point, its the opinion of one person little else) and seeing things the way I see them. You can believe what you want, I see no point in fighting about it anymore.

I have ceased arguing and am just stating my views now.

I saw a great deal of insuation that I was stupid, foolish etc, maybe it was there maybe it wasn't. And let passion take over and I think we can all agree passion is the enemy of rational thought.

I have ceased arguing and am just stating my views now.

I view with suspision a great many things if not everything that humanity says and does. I do not trust my fellow man in the slightest and probly never will so I go off what I can see (just like alot of you). I do not believe in magical cupcakes, invisible pink unicorns, psychic sky faeries, spagetti monsters or whatever. I see no proof for the existance of a higher power and would be the first to admit that. Especially as the organized religions see such a creature. But neither do I see proof that one doesn't exist. Its a very large grey area out there to me and to claim otherwise as I see it is human silliness. As this quote I very much agree with says.

"We all believe in something .. greater than ourselves, even if it's just the blind forces of chance." -G'Kar (Babylon 5)

And as I see it regardless of what you as accept as evidence for that belief it is still a belief and subject to being wrong. Once again just things as I see it.

I have ceased arguing and am just stating my views now.

I grow tired of the arguing and the bickering and the "my truth is the only truth" when as I see it everything is still up in the air, and both sides all have holes that they tend to ignore exists (and some claim there is no such hole). After all the sun may have risen for as long as mankind can remember and before but that doesn't mean it will happen tomorrow, and that is the basis for really (in a nutshell and boiled down) my skepticism of EVERYTHING.

I have ceased arguing and am just stating my views now.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by WraothAscendant]

Call me a crank, call me a crackpot, call me a fool, call me insane, call me whatever you want I will most likely disagree and vice versa. Except if you call me faithless in everything, even at times my own senses and thoughts.
Evicerate EVERY word I have typed if you want. Won't change a thing, if I did the same to what you believe and see (and yes I am guilty of it) won't change a thing either, except make ourselves feel better about our various and different positions. Line up to collectively call me a fool if you want. But I refuse to fight anymore. I disagree but I see no further point in arguing it. You will dress me in up in whatever costume you want me in, in your mind and there is nothing I can do that will change that. Words are rubbery and are open to interpetation (and bending) on many levels as far as I can see. And the thoughts behind words has nothing simular to it in the physical and is rather confusing. Not sure how to convey what I mean with that.

P.s. Yes my grammer and typing sucks.

Buh bye now.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
I have ceased arguing and am just stating my views now.

you see.... this is kind of the opposite of how ATS works...
you don't just state your views and bugger off, you tend to argue a case.

I apologize to MajorMalfunction in the suggestion of brown-nosing. Regardless of Major's claim that people other than Melatonin here are 'inferior', it was wrong of me to go mile-for-mile, tit-for-tat instead of taking the high road. I don't know MajorMalfunction personally so would not be able to personally attack and did not mean a single action defines a person. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding and offense.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
you see.... this is kind of the opposite of how ATS works...
you don't just state your views and bugger off, you tend to argue a case.

This is true, else it is merely preaching...and we all know just how wrong that is here

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
I have ceased arguing and am just stating my views now.

you see.... this is kind of the opposite of how ATS works...
you don't just state your views and bugger off, you tend to argue a case.

Here we go again. Pick a small part and attack it when you can't attack the whole thing like that small part invalidates the entire thing.

And yes that is the spirit intended but I really have to wonder if it achieves that at times.

All that ANY of us have achieved so far is to circle each other with very little change either way and alot of bickering. Both sides have claimed the other ignores counter points (I know I have seen my points dodged or dismissed as "nonsense" with little explaination even when asked for one, or turned into some sort of magical food based joke ) so how does has this gone beyond the pointless realm of bashing each other over the head with each others beliefs with little or no chance of true discussion?

I see it this way. You point to what we think we know and say something is impossible based on what we know (you admit science can be wrong and you claim it can admit it) ignoring the margins of knowledge where the things we don't know or maybe even can't know exist, I point to those margins and say there is room for doubt either way. Then it spirals from there. That is the whole argument boiled down to its essence as far as I can see.

And we can go on like this til the sun burns out and get no where because we are all stubborn. Once again there is no attack in my statements so kindly don't pretend there is.



[edit on 7-9-2007 by WraothAscendant]

[edit on 7-9-2007 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
I see it this way. You point to what we think we know and say something is impossible based on what we know (you admit science can be wrong and you claim it can admit it) ignoring the margins of knowledge where the things we don't know or maybe even can't know exist, I point to those margins and say there is room for doubt either way. Then it spirals from there. That is the whole argument boiled down to its essence as far as I can see.

Science isn't wrong, our understanding of it can be. I think we proved the Earth isn't flat, nor does the whole universe orbit the Earth, nor is the Earth 6000 years old...

reply to post by AncientVoid


What you just said, above is the most plausible statement to concur with.

Thankyou.

I am a spiritual person.

And I've mentioned in another thread - the fact that before any scientific reasoning can be had, there will fore-most be a 'belief', to which must be tested.

Before anything...a 'belief' commences. After this 'belief' or 'notion', science has yet to determine the 'actuality' or truth, from said belief.

Am I correct so far?

Most, if not all beliefs in science are based on facts and the world around us...

[edit on 8-9-2007 by AncientVoid]

reply to post by AncientVoid

Science isn't wrong, our understanding of it can be. I think we proved the Earth isn't flat, nor does the whole universe orbit the Earth, nor is the Earth 6000 years old...

***sigh*** You just don't get it do you? Are you incapable of even fathoming what I am trying to say? I am sure you think you know but I assure you sir or ma'am you are in error.
Ok. I'll bite and ask you this. What do you mean when you say science? Don't use a dictionary put it in your own words and do try to be precise.





[edit on 8-9-2007 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by AncientVoid
Most, if not all beliefs in science are based on facts and the world around us...

[edit on 8-9-2007 by AncientVoid]

yep, even an initial hypothesis is based on something factual, some sort of reasonable guess as to what is causing something

Ok will just state so I can say I said it. Science and the things it studies aren't the same thing sorry ancient just isn't so. And mankind doesn't know everything (and just misunderstands it or whatever that was that you said).
You can call what you believe to be true and have damn good and complelling reasons to believe that but it is still just a belief we are limited in our perceptions and none of you have tried to deny that one. Unless you imply some sort of perfection for yourself or anyone else..

Thats it can we PLEASE let this just die and stop playing "The last word game"?

[edit on 8-9-2007 by WraothAscendant]