It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Please quote exactly any alleged ad homenim attack I used, and please demonstrate exactly how I was using a form of slander in lue of an argument. I'd really like to know, because I don't see it. You had thus far shown a ignorance of the position of science on matters, and I provided you with a method of correcting that misconception.
Ignorance is not an insult, until you begin to seek comfortable refuge in that ignorance rather than properly informing yourself. As you note, I made mention of science's position of ignorance as well... because you have to admit ignorance about a subject, before you can learn or make discoveries about it.... which is what Science is all about.
If you took offense, then I apologize for that offense. It was not my intention. Let's be clear on that point.
I hear that quite a bit from a wide spectrum of people - but I've tended to notice that it's not really true. So I would ask you, in your own words, without copy and pasting, what you believe the scientific method to be. Just to clear up any further confusion.
I'm sorry, but I find your insights into the psyche of the human animal under a shroud of doubt considering you have thus already in this thread misinterpreted a mere statement of observance with an (improperly used) ad homenim attack.
I don't feel as though your gut instinct about humanity trumps the impressive track record of success which science has going for it.
Yes, paradigms and paradigm shifts occur. However, they don't occur until the necessary level of evidence necessary is met. This is actually a part of the scientific method you claim to know about already. This gauntlet of skepticism and resistance ensures that new ideas which are accepted are based upon empirical evidence reasoned logic.... because if it isn't, if there are mistakes, then the hypothesis will get torn to shreds in the peer review literature and in the academic arena.
It builds better theories. And while there will always be a stubborn few who cling to their old assumptions and views on the universe - science isn't controlled by a consortium of a few individuals. The better your theory is, the more support it will gather. The more support it gathers, the more research and funding goes into establishing it.
No, it seems that humans are naturally curious animals. It was an evolutionary advantage to us to figure out and understand our world and explore what was beyond the horizon. We have plenty of theories we *think* are correct, or that explain the evidence fairly well, but nobody in science says we have figured something out 100%, and they are never above saying "We could be wrong" or "We don't know". Sometimes the evidence is so strong, such as in the case of Evolution, that you don't need to preface every statement with a "we think", "it could be", or "we could be wrong"... because the probability of us being right is so high that it's rather pointless to preface with a doubt anyone who knows what they're talking about already knows exists but for which there is not currently enough evidence to explore. Until, at least, discussions in that subject drift to a tentative point we aren't so sure about.
The mathematics support the Big Bang theory. Indeed, the mathematics define it, and we have the evidence to support such an event happened via the cosmic microwave background radiation. What came before? We don't know. Nobody has ever been able to glean any evidence that would suggest what happened before.
Do you have, or know of, an alternative theory which better explains the evidence?
As for a great monument to our technological achievement, I'd say going to the moon - rather than simply sitting on Earth gazing at it, or howling at it, is pretty damned impressive. To say nothing of the feats of calculation needed to send the Cassini-Hyugens probe slingshotting through the inner solar system, back off of earth, out to jupiter, and ultimately through a very narrow gap in Saturn's rings... a distance so vast that it takes even light over an hour an a half to reach... pretty impressive in itself.
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by constantwonder
Isn't that more than a bit of an oxymoron? Flat 3d space? Rather like saying a straight circle.