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.
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by disownedsky
We agree that part of scientific inquiry is observation, correct?
Secondly, we agree that part of scientific inquiry is if the thing studied has some
basis in our current scientific understanding, yes (which sadly, limits science since it refuses to accept anything that hasn't already been released for public consumption)?
Thirdly, we agree that it must have a rational reason and a logical conclusion?
These are very limiting frameworks to function within, as the assumption is that we already know everything there is to know and anything that deviates from that is not true or so highly suspect, that there's no reason to believe it to be true.
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by disownedsky
Secondly, we agree that part of scientific inquiry is if the thing studied has some
basis in our current scientific understanding, yes (which sadly, limits science since it refuses to accept anything that hasn't already been released for public consumption)?
Thirdly, we agree that it must have a rational reason and a logical conclusion?
I mean, science isn't just about the nuts and bolts, if it was, there'd be no theoretical physics and most of nuclear science would still be unknown.
These are very limiting frameworks to function within, as the assumption is that we already know everything there is to know and anything that deviates from that is not true or so highly suspect, that there's no reason to believe it to be true.
That's really not science, I'm sorry to say. Science is about discovery, not about stubborn refusal to admit you don't know it all already.
Originally posted by Phil J. Fry
and of course, the "proof" that ET loves all of us and can be summoned with lasershows and happy happy thoughts to help us reach the next level of consciousness.
And with this scenario, rational people are driven away from the topic, even if they'd shown initial interest. Wouldn't that count as disinformation ?
Originally posted by MrdDstrbr
Obsess much??
[edit on 23-1-2008 by MrdDstrbr]
Originally posted by V Kaminski
Perfect. One liner. Bill me.
Vic
Originally posted by undo
the opening comments from obi wan were perfect:
"only a sith deals in absolutes."
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Apparently, it's not only Sith, but Obi-Wan too. Isn't "only a sith deals in absolutes" an absolute?
I clearly saw that some are trying to enarlge definition to include everything (all information) that they think offences their beliefs