Flat universe may be the new flat Earth, page 2

reply to post by Lasheic

*chuckles* Here we go again. How fun.

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.

The classic "yous just ignorant of science" is ad hom friend. And you top it off with passive aggressiveness, how innovative. *Not really.*

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.

Hmmm, jump through the hoops of someone who took offense at my OP with really understanding what I was talking about. Yea, sounds real tempting to me.

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.

Sure was ad hom. You were not even clear as to what I was saying. But, go ahead and pretend otherwise, I expect nothing less. It's worth noting that name calling has often attempted to be justified as "observation". And you even add more assumptions, "gut instinct" has nothing to do with what I said.

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.

Mighty fine propaganda there.

Must be great to have unswerving trust.

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.

Too bad you don't manage to refute anything I said, optimistic spouting off aside.

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?

Funny you would mention cosmic microwave radiation and evidence. The Big Bang theory called for a non-uniform temprature of background microwave radiation. This was found not to be the case, but instead of the Big Bang being thrown out they decide to shift the expectation. Keeping the beginning point of the Big Bang and all it entails as if we knew that happened. Despite multiple hits and corrections keeping that fabled beginning in the forefront. It's a creation myth. Nothing more nothing less.
Also, so in order for me to disagree I must have an alternative theory? Especially in light of the fact I assert that we are in no position to know for sure. That's funny.

The rest I omit off hand for more ad hom.

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.

All achieved by innovations of existing technology in some case ancient technology. Nothing really all that new.

You don't even know what I was talking about all you know is I dared criticize science or more precisely scientists.